QDJM and the entitlement of certain STABs thereto

Apologies for dragging up an old subject. A mate has recently been affected by this issue.

The qualifying criteria for the QDJM medal were, for members of the TA:

a. They had to be in military service on 06 Feb 12; and
b. They had to have completed 5 years' qualifying service (as defined) but training year 2011-12 must be one of the qualifying years; and
c. They had to obtain a Commanding Officer's Certificate of Efficiency (COE) for the 2011-2012 training year by 31 Mar 12.

These criteria produced the anomalous result whereby members of the TA who had 5 years' qualifying service (or more, and in some cases much more) as at 06 Feb 12 would not be awarded the medal. Due to the unfortunate wording of the DIN, they would not be entitled to the gong if they did not go on, after the qualifying date, to obtain a COE for that training year. The wording of paragraph 4(b) of 2011DIN09-012 is clear: "the correct overall total of 5 Certificates of Efficiency (annual bounty earning training years) [must be] fully accounted for by 31 Mar 12."

That produced a (presumably unintended) discriminatory outcome. A Regular with 5 years' qualifying service on 06 Feb 12 who left the Army the following day would get the medal. A STAB with, say, 10 years' service, or more, on 06 Feb 12 who failed to go on to get a COE for that final year would not get the medal.

Essentially, that failure to get a COE rendered their entire service for 2011-2012 and earlier qualifying years invalid even though they were clearly in military service on the qualifying date and had 5 years' qualifying service. Even if they could point to qualifying service in other years which would take them over the 5-year threshold on 06 Feb 12, that would not count. What mattered, completely arbitrarily, was that they got a COE for that final training year. That was the effect of rule (b) above.

My main question relates to rule (c) and concerns those who -

  • were granted an extension to the deadline for completing the necessary training in training year 2011-2012,
  • completed the necessary training by the end of the extension period; and so
  • were awarded a COE for training year 2011-2012.

In that sense, their training for that year ought to have counted as valid qualifying service. But in their case, even though they had completed 5 years' qualifying service including TY 2011-12, they were caught by the arbitrary deadline of having to have achieved this by 31 Mar 12. I say "arbitrary" because TA Regulations expressly permits extensions of the deadline. In my view, the 31 Mar 12 deadline was probably set by someone ignorant of the existence of the possibility of an extension.

Main Question: the Medals Office currently applies rule (c). However, was it ever relaxed to take extensions into account, or challenged because it did not take TA Regulations properly into account?

Bonus question: was the arbitrariness of rule (b) ever challenged? If so, what was the outcome?
 
Last edited:
A mitigating factor in Rule c. is CO's discretion.

Could he, based on past performance, anticipate that the soldier would achieve the required level of efficiency after being granted the extension?
 
A mitigating factor in Rule c. is CO's discretion.

Could he, based on past performance, anticipate that the soldier would achieve the required level of efficiency after being granted the extension?
Wouldn't that discretion have had to be exercised by the CO prior to 31 Mar 12, though? In other words, the CO would have had to issue a COE based on the soldier's past performance before the deadline. If the CO didn't twig at the time that he or she could do this, the soldier concerned loses out.

In the case of the person on whose behalf, it's irrelevant: that bod was granted an extension and completed the training during the first week of April 2012. The application for the gong has only recently gone in and has bounced back, for failing to meet the 31 Mar 12 deadline for the 2011/2012 COE.
 
Apologies for dragging up an old subject. A mate has recently been affected by this issue.

The qualifying criteria for the QDJM medal were, for members of the TA:

a. They had to be in military service on 06 Feb 12; and
b. They had to have completed 5 years' qualifying service (as defined) but training year 2011-12 must be one of the qualifying years; and
c. They had to obtain a Commanding Officer's Certificate of Efficiency (COE) for the 2011-2012 training year by 31 Mar 12.

These criteria produced the anomalous result whereby members of the TA who had 5 years' qualifying service (or more, and in some cases much more) as at 06 Feb 12 would not be awarded the medal. Due to the unfortunate wording of the DIN, they would not be entitled to the gong if they did not go on, after the qualifying date, to obtain a COE for that training year. The wording of paragraph 4(b) of 2011DIN09-012 is clear: "the correct overall total of 5 Certificates of Efficiency (annual bounty earning training years) [must be] fully accounted for by 31 Mar 12."

That produced a (presumably unintended) discriminatory outcome. A Regular with 5 years' qualifying service on 06 Feb 12 who left the Army the following day would get the medal. A STAB with, say, 10 years' service, or more, on 06 Feb 12 who failed to go on to get a COE for that final year would not get the medal.

Essentially, that failure to get a COE rendered their entire service for 2011-2012 and earlier qualifying years invalid even though they were clearly in military service on the qualifying date and had 5 years' qualifying service. Even if they could point to qualifying service in other years which would take them over the 5-year threshold on 06 Feb 12, that would not count. What mattered, completely arbitrarily, was that they got a COE for that final training year. That was the effect of rule (b) above.

My main question relates to rule (c) and concerns those who -

  • were granted an extension to the deadline for completing the necessary training in training year 2011-2012,
  • completed the necessary training by the end of the extension period; and so
  • were awarded a COE for training year 2011-2012.

In that sense, their training for that year ought to have counted as valid qualifying service. But in their case, even though they had completed 5 years' qualifying service including TY 2011-12, they were caught by the arbitrary deadline of having to have achieved this by 31 Mar 12. I say "arbitrary" because TA Regulations expressly permits extensions of the deadline. In my view, the 31 Mar 12 deadline was probably set by someone ignorant of the existence of the possibility of an extension.

Main Question: the Medals Office currently applies rule (c). However, was it ever relaxed to take extensions into account, or challenged because it did not take TA Regulations properly into account?

Bonus question: was the arbitrariness of rule (b) ever challenged? If so, what was the outcome?
The end if the day, it's the contract you signed up for. Part of that contract is caveated that you will achieve A, B, and C...



Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
The end if the day, it's the contract you signed up for. Part of that contract is caveated that you will achieve A, B, and C...
I love it when people simply accept rules, especially when they are bogus, arbitrary or unfair. That's how megalomaniacs such as myself keep the vast majority suppressed: all I ask is sullen compliance, not respect, still less fear.

To me, any rule can be challenged. In the case of rule (b), it can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair as between Regulars and Reservists in exactly the same situation. Rule (c) can be challenged because it is arbitrary. It's not law, it's not a contract. It's just a DIN, probably drafted by a Major and definitely issued by a mere Lt Col, both almost certainly ignorant of the intricacies of TA Regulations.

Hey, I got my QDJM and secured a load for a bunch of borderline cases because I read the DIN at the time and implemented it. The person on whose behalf I am asking did not have Dr the Lord Evil QC looking out for them at the time but that will not stop me now.
 
Rules are for a reason, there has to be a standard:

“The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of less value. There must, therefore, be heart-burnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of satisfying nobody. All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest.”

Winston Churchill (Prime Minister) – March 22nd, 1944


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
I love it when people simply accept rules, especially when they are bogus, arbitrary or unfair. That's how megalomaniacs such as myself keep the vast majority suppressed: all I ask is sullen compliance, not respect, still less fear.

To me, any rule can be challenged. In the case of rule (b), it can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair as between Regulars and Reservists in exactly the same situation. Rule (c) can be challenged because it is arbitrary. It's not law, it's not a contract. It's just a DIN, probably drafted by a Major and definitely issued by a mere Lt Col, both almost certainly ignorant of the intricacies of TA Regulations.

Hey, I got my QDJM and secured a load for a bunch of borderline cases because I read the DIN at the time and implemented it. The person on whose behalf I am asking did not have Dr the Lord Evil QC looking out for them at the time but that will not stop me now.
How is rule 'B' unfair? A regular serves for 365 days of the year, a reservist completes 20...

Hardly similar, is it?



Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
How is rule 'B' unfair? A regular serves for 365 days of the year, a reservist completes 20...

Hardly similar, is it?
It's not how many days you put into your work, it's how much work you put into your days...

Nope. The lunacy is trying to make one set of rules apply to two very different circumstances. But that's been discussed before.
 
No, no and thrice no.

If you're entitled to one you would have it. If not you won't. The regulations are not anomalous, just misinterpreted.
 
How is rule 'B' unfair? A regular serves for 365 days of the year, a reservist completes 20...

Hardly similar, is it?
* sigh *

Treating people equally does not mean that the situations of each person must be identical. I grant you that I did use the phrase "in exactly the same situation" but by that I meant in terms of being in military service on the qualifying date and having 5 years or more qualifying service.

I like the Churchill quote but if we are going to chuck quotations around, try this:

“treat like cases as like”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, V.3. 1131a10-b15; Politics, III.9.1280 a8-15, III. 12. 1282b18-23).​

The corollary of this is that "unlike" cases, such as that of Regulars and Reservists, should be treated differently but only proportionate to the differences between them.

Here, you are exaggerating the differences between Regulars and Reservists in order to justify the imposition of a manifestly irrational rule.

There are other, better responses you could have given: make the qualifying period for Reservists longer as they work for fewer days per year than Regulars (although this would have given rise to a complicated set of eligibility criteria, for example.

But my point is that (b) is unfair because the rule has not been properly thought through and so it has played out in an unfair way which fails to recognise the service which is the basis of the award of the medal.

The rule in (b) should have been a threshold number of days' training completed during the training year 2011-12 by the qualifying date of 06 Feb 12. Further, the rules should have been made clear before the start of the training year so that people could have had a reasonable chance of meeting it.
 
No, no and thrice no.

If you're entitled to one you would have it. If not you won't. The regulations are not anomalous, just misinterpreted.
I refer my learned friend to the answer I gave blobmeister earlier:

I love it when people simply accept rules, especially when they are bogus, arbitrary or unfair. That's how megalomaniacs such as myself keep the vast majority suppressed: all I ask is sullen compliance, not respect, still less fear.

To me, any rule can be challenged. In the case of rule (b), it can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair as between Regulars and Reservists in exactly the same situation. Rule (c) can be challenged because it is arbitrary. It's not law, it's not a contract. It's just a DIN, probably drafted by a Major and definitely issued by a mere Lt Col, both almost certainly ignorant of the intricacies of TA Regulations.

Hey, I got my QDJM and secured a load for a bunch of borderline cases because I read the DIN at the time and implemented it. The person on whose behalf I am asking did not have Dr the Lord Evil QC looking out for them at the time but that will not stop me now.
 
What is required to receive the certificate of efficiency?

Completion of all MATTS, Camp and so many MTDs?
 
And I refer you to your contract, and the DIN regarding the medal qualification.

Your contract clearly differs from mine; therefore, not comparative. However, the outcome remains...even Mike Golden has a Jubilee medal!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
And I refer you to your contract, and the DIN regarding the medal qualification.

Your contract clearly differs from mine; therefore, not comparative. However, the outcome remains...even Mike Golden has a Jubilee medal!
Blobmeister, it's been glorious but I don't think I can take this any further with you. You're saying that the rules are both right because they are rules. That's circular and irrational but there is no point in my challenging your position.

The main question I was (and am still) asking was whether rule (c) was, at the time, altered at the time after it became obvious that it did not fit with TA Regulations. The rule was wrong for that reason alone. I can remember a certain amount of shouting about it at the time but not the outcome.
 
Anyone who goes above and beyond for a medal that Justin Beiber got should be bummed.
 
What is required to receive the certificate of efficiency?

Completion of all MATTS, Camp and so many MTDs?
Yes, more or less, although as puttees mentioned a while back a Commanding Officer has discretion to grant a certificate of efficiency in deserving cases.

The person concerned for some reason missed the only MATTs weekend run that year by the unit concerned. It seems the CO did not issue discretionary COEs or warn people in time. In the end, this person completed the MATTs during the week immediately after the 31 Mar 12 deadline.

I understand the "man up, wet pants" argument, and the "rules is rules" argument. But in this case the rule is defective because it does not reflect TA Regulations and the existing system in place for completing the requirements for gaining a certificate of efficiency. That was an error. The rule is wrong.
 
I don't agree, there was a criteria to meet which appears more than fair.

Your argument appears to be with the CO as to why he did not grant the COE.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Dr_Evil Medals 3
ex_donkey_man Medals 5
crash test Medals 10

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top