Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Main Board Result - Appeal

Crossface

Old-Salt
Hi,
I’ve heard through the grapevine of applicants appealing their Main Board results, especially in light of the COVID-shortened board. Has anyone appealed a Main Board result with any success, and what was the actual process?
 
I assume you've not been given a reccomendation to attend RMAS following main board?

Do you still get the option to have a second go?
Yes you do. The board letters that the applicant doesn’t see are marked as Fail (Encourage) or Fail (Discourage) if someone hasn’t passed. The latter doesn’t stop re- attendance and I’ve been on a board where someone with that output passed 2nd time round.

Instead of appealing it would be better to just have another go.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Do you still have 'Deferred Watch'?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
So a Fail (Encourage) would be the equivalent?
 
Basically yes. Go away, your career advisor will discuss what’s wrong, sort it out and then come back.

Mainly for phys fails, but occasionally other things as well.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Interesting. It's probably covered elsewhere but is there any Rowallan equivalent?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Hi,
I’ve heard through the grapevine of applicants appealing their Main Board results, especially in light of the COVID-shortened board. Has anyone appealed a Main Board result with any success, and what was the actual process?

Given that Westbury is not populated by vendetta-driven lizard men, any appeal would more than likely increase confidence in the original decision.

Go back and don't cock it up again.
 

WhiskeyTango

Old-Salt
With mind to previous posts, I'll give my opinion as an officer who is time-elligible to work in Westbury or RMAS, so hopefully it'll mirror what those who are down there now are thinking.

The Army requires officers that are humble, professionally competent and self aware. It does not require egotistical enthusiasts who believe they have a right to the commision-either by virtue of birth or more often these days, because of largely irrelevant UOTC experience.

When someone fails main board, it's because that board has decided that the person in question would be unlikely to pass RMAS, and even if he did, that he had a character flaw that is undesirable in an officer.

Appealing this decision is a great way to prove them right. It suggests you are a self entitled, righteous bloke that won't take no for an answer and thinks he's special.

Appealing, in an army context, is best reserved for errors in fact. "I am appealing on the grounds that the rejection letter stated i was unfit, i believe this to be a mix up as i infact passed all the PT tests with a HC".

Being told "no" is heart breaking, particularly if you've set yourself this goal. You must now do some critical, honest self analysis and come to terms with why you didn't pass and then decide if they are things you can change or not. Fitness is easy, maturity is easy too. (Go away, travel, work, **** about and come back 18 months later)

Finally, not being accepted into RMAS doesn't mean you're not a good bloke, or a good leader, or intelligent. It just means that you are not a right match for that one organisation and you shouldn't ever let that hold you back.
 
Just to add the candidate only sees ‘Successful’ or ‘Unsuccessful’, they don’t (or at least shouldn’t) see the full report.
Can the candidate demand to see the full report under an FOIA, request? I can imagine some of the more historical ones may contain interesting comments that the author wouldn't expect to be seen by a wider audience.
 

Crossface

Old-Salt
The most helpful and revealing question is: What are the grounds on which you wish to raise an appeal?
The appeals I have heard of being raised were on the grounds that he had basically failed because of performance on the command tasks, but given that command tasks are basically a hypothetical exercise on the Covid Main Board that wasn’t a fair assessment.
As it was his second attempt at the board I was curious how the appeal works, if it is a review of the decision that might change or if it means that he would attend the board again.
 

Crossface

Old-Salt
Just to add the candidate only sees ‘Successful’ or ‘Unsuccessful’, they don’t (or at least shouldn’t) see the full report.
The candidate will get a letter with ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful (encourage)’ or ‘unsuccessful (discourage)’ (on the first attempt) but does receive the full Main Board report via CSM about a week later. I believe they can also FOI request it in writing otherwise it is given over the phone.
 
Can the candidate demand to see the full report under an FOIA, request? I can imagine some of the more historical ones may contain interesting comments that the author wouldn't expect to be seen by a wider audience.
Really? When interviewing I wouldn’t dream of making a report comment that I would be unhappy with the applicant (or anyone else) reading. It should be factual, to the point, and not ‘clever’ unless you want a decision to come back and bite you on the ARRSE.
 

Diogenes' limp

Old-Salt
The appeals I have heard of being raised were on the grounds that he had basically failed because of performance on the command tasks, but given that command tasks are basically a hypothetical exercise on the Covid Main Board that wasn’t a fair assessment.
As it was his second attempt at the board I was curious how the appeal works, if it is a review of the decision that might change or if it means that he would attend the board again.
I suspect RCB pass in Jan 75 leaves me a little far away to advise, but it may be worth reflecting that hypothetical, or table top, exercises are the real thing minus the element of physical risk. Which are/were frequently used to test officer/organisation competence. So this is/was something well practised and outcomes guided career development.

One interpretation of the candidate's position would be that they have no faith in the ability of the organisation, to which they aspire, to make effective judgements on hypotheticals, which is in fact the army's stock in trade.
 
Really? When interviewing I wouldn’t dream of making a report comment that I would be unhappy with the applicant (or anyone else) reading. It should be factual, to the point, and not ‘clever’ unless you want a decision to come back and bite you on the ARRSE.
Which is why I put historical. I've read some stuff that was distinctly "clever" from back in the day.
 
One of my sprog’s failed on the psychometric testing she was gutted as she had flown through all of the other tests. It took her a week to get her head right applied to do her masters passed with flying colours and is now half way through her PHD. She is on one hell of a wage and happy they only thing that she regrets is the fail on the testing I suppose her brain is not wired the right way.
 

Latest Threads

Top