Letter of Censure

#1
Can anyone give some advice on a certain matter of discipline. One of my guys is going to be awarded a Letter of Censure next week. He was one of the lunatics who decided to dabble in a spot of streaking at this years Army v Navy game. Personally cant see the big issue myself with a little bravado lets face it, rugby is well documented for its passionate streakers... and a game without one is not really a game at all. But, my lad was arrested and fined for his little moment of nudity. Today a letter from the police landed on the OC desk, so AGAI action has to be taken.

My question is, what sort of impact will this punishment have on his career? It is a shame to be honest, as he had a cracking chance at promotion this year... Gurr!
 
#2
a.2. ANNEX D TO AGAI 67
a.Major Administrative Action Sanctions


b.Letter of Censure. A Letter of Censure is a more serious sanction than a Formal Interview. The “letter” referred to is the Directed Letter from the Deciding Officer in which the serviceman’s failure in values and standards are recounted and the disapproval of the chain of command is expressed. The Letter of Censure is recorded by a Regimental Entry that remains on record for 5 years. However, if the Deciding Officer believes neither that the failing is one that could have been dealt with disciplinarily, nor that it relates to a civil offence he may direct that the sanction should be recorded on the CR book for only 3 years. A copy of the Directed Letter will be permanently retained on the serviceman’s P File in the APC.APPENDIX 3 TO

According to AGAI 67 a Censure does not in itself preclude promotion, but any board would see it-that said any recommendation or promotion depends on the continued recommendation by the CO. Presumably your chap knew that what he was doing was against the rules and would result in some form of action.

Good bloke or not he commited a Civil Offence and must face the consequences of his actions.

Full text of AGAI 67

http://www.amca.org.uk/resources/20081016_AGAI+67_Edn3+1_U.doc

and a well thumbed hard copy in your Adjutant's office
 
#3
You should ask what he expected or was he too drunk to think about the consequences of his actions. The Arny is hardly likely to want to encourage such action and a 'Letter of Censure' is probably a reasonable admin action. As has already been stated, the letter will be stapled to the insider of his AR book and will be noticed and considered by promotion boards. The scenario or events will be not be briefed to the board. In summary, it will probably affect his promotion chances for a couple of years. I suggest his loss will be greater than a few thousand people laughing at his manhood.
 
#5
lol no he was not Zorro, but i did hear a General was fuming about the Zorro incident and wanted to make an example of him. Maybe he should call himself Whan Sheet now
 
#6
He has already been charged and fined for the offence, why should he suffer another punishment ?
 
#7
No_Duff said:
He has already been charged and fined for the offence, why should he suffer another punishment ?
Because he failed to maintain Army standards - it is an administrative punishment that often follows a criminal conviction, one that is well documented - the 'streaker' knew what he was doing and what he was risking so where is the problem.
 
#8
No_Duff said:
He has already been charged and fined for the offence, why should he suffer another punishment ?
Usually for bringing the Army into disrepute although I agree with you. Would the police have written to a civilian's employers? They had dealt with the issue and given him a fine, why did they therefore seek further punishment and, if the don't routinely write to an offenders employers why did they do so in this case? Does your man have a cause to make a complaint about the police?
 
#9
AFA06 said:
No_Duff said:
He has already been charged and fined for the offence, why should he suffer another punishment ?
Because he failed to maintain Army standards - it is an administrative punishment that often follows a criminal conviction, one that is well documented - the 'streaker' knew what he was doing and what he was risking so where is the problem.
I don't question the Army's actions, I question the Police. The police would not have written to any civilian streaker's employers so what right do they have to write to his?
 
#10
Markintime said:
AFA06 said:
No_Duff said:
He has already been charged and fined for the offence, why should he suffer another punishment ?
Because he failed to maintain Army standards - it is an administrative punishment that often follows a criminal conviction, one that is well documented - the 'streaker' knew what he was doing and what he was risking so where is the problem.
I don't question the Army's actions, I question the Police. The police would not have written to any civilian streaker's employers so what right do they have to write to his?
I hear what you are saying but the key word there is 'civilian'. This lad is a soldier, the Army has well advertised standards of behaviour which, if you fail to maintain you will be administratively dealt with.

Like I said, the guy knew the score, what was a funny drunken prank at the time was always going to be more serious if he was caught.
 
#11
Yes, we are all expected to maintain higher standards/values than those in civilian life. Part of the whole being a British soldier shtick like it or lump it.

The General in question - would that have been CGS? He didn't look happy during the match and was quite edgy afterwards.
 
#12
Bleeding typical, he has already been dealt with by being fined.
Now he is to be persecuted by his unit.
No wonder morale sinks lower than a snakes belly.
In addition typical of the police to inform unit, t*ats.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Scally said:
lol no he was not Zorro, but i did hear a General was fuming about the Zorro incident and wanted to make an example of him.
General were never young nor did they engage in "high jinks"
 
#16
Jerrycan2793 said:
Its not the decision of the police, Certain employments mean the police have to inform the employer. The Army is one of them.
I would suggest this is one of those cases where rules could be bent, broken or forgotten.
 
#17
INCH_HIGH said:
Bleeding typical, he has already been dealt with by being fined.
Now he is to be persecuted by his unit.
No wonder morale sinks lower than a snakes belly.
In addition typical of the police to inform unit, t*ats.
So the next time some civvy fails to show what you would consider special consideration to someone in the military because 'we are special' you won't complain?

He is not being persecuted by his unit, the police did not inform on him. He failed to uphold his end of the Military Covenant, you know-the bit that says we will respect you as long as you behave in the manner we expect (be that the battlefield or the rugby pitch).
 
#19
INCH_HIGH said:
Bleeding typical, he has already been dealt with by being fined.
Now he is to be persecuted by his unit.
No wonder morale sinks lower than a snakes belly.
In addition typical of the police to inform unit, t*ats.
Umm this isnt something new, thats just happened, this has gone on for decades, repark the bus mate.
 
#20
devexwarrior said:
skintboymike said:
Jerrycan2793 said:
Its not the decision of the police, Certain employments mean the police have to inform the employer. The Army is one of them.
I would suggest this is one of those cases where rules could be bent, broken or forgotten.
Why?
He should either be charged by the police OR reported to his unit, not both. I'm not looking for special treatment for this guy, he's been a dick and deserves to be punished once. Not three times.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T Professionally Qualified, RAMC and QARANC 4
gijoe Aviation 3
N The Training Wing 25

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top