What does your pal hope to achieve with a redress? They are normally submitted when an ongoing problem (ie harrassment) fails to stop, or a factual inaccuracy on a CR occurs, and the report writer won't change it. Unless you can be a little more specific with details of your mate's case, it will be diffcult to advise the correct course of action.
Note on your link though, despite the redress shambles that (ex)Sgt Howard endured, the industrial tribunal triumphed ultimately. If a redress does get steam-rollered for whatever reason, then you can always resort to a tribunal if the case is strong enough as you suggest in your post.
PM me if you don't want to post details in the public arena.
First up, there are new policy guidelines released recently to help speed up the process of redress, but I cannot go into detail as they were released as RESTRICTED. However, the regimental SSA and/or Pl Comd should be aware of them. If not, ask.
Second, in order to apply for redress, you friend must have been wronged and must believe he is entitled to the redress he seeks. Finally, although it's not mentioned anywhere in the regulations, he must think that the not inconsiderable trouble that comes from such a complaint is justified.
I take it then that you feel that he should not bother with his redress but continue to take whatever is being handed out, thereby ensuring that this matter is not noticed upstairs for the OC's next CR? Or are you the OC in question
If still a problem, then raise it informally and if no joy then formally. There is no point not doing anything if it is going to fester as it may effect his/her performance for the detriment of all concerned.
Ideas Factory has this bang on. Redressing does work (although it is slow), but there must be something concrete to redress about. It is not merely a way of venting the spleen if you are pissed off with the boss. Picking up a specific point, reference to past CRs is a non starter as they are (as the name implies) confidential, so unless the originator wrote the last one, then the writer should not have access to it. A CR should not come as a surprise though, as the MPAR process should tell the individual what might be coming. If that hasn't happened then that is grounds for redress.
As ramillies posted, informally first but only allow 7 days for a reasoned resolution, before a formal complaint is submitted, the CO will then have 2 days to start the process, informing 3 locations. I assume that your friend has already took the first action?
A CR should not come as a surprise though, as the MPAR process should tell the individual what might be coming. If that hasn't happened then that is grounds for redress.
I have known in my experience of redress cases were ACR's pen pictures have been composed by the soldiers OC that not only smacked in the face of the soldiers previous ACR composed by the same OC. but also of their MYA.
Complaint about the content of ACR pen Pictures are mostly down to a personal conflict between soldier and ROs. most can be very trivial and sorted out at the lowest level, however some that I have known, have proved to be very serious, bordering on criminal. not the ACR itself, but how the chain of Command attempt to abuse the redress process just because it would show up in the investigation at Glasgow level, failings or F*ckups by the RO's, that are far more serious than just the complainants ACR. in short the reason for a spiteful, vindictive, untrue report was due to the ROs improper motives done before the ACR, in short acts of harassment and we all know of some ROs flexing their reporting pen just to get their own back on someone.
Grounds for complaint may exist if there is evidence that the opinions of the RO were influenced by improper motives or by the application of incorrect procedures or wrong principles. Evidence of failure to counsel an individual or where it is believed that there has been insufficient time for a RO to formulate a balanced opinion may also constitute grounds for complaint
. The fact that a MPAR/MYR had not been given is often cited by the Army Board as sufficient reason to grant a Complainants redress.
However the topic was
IS IT WORTH IT? will it get whitewashed? would the Army Board, if it got that far, be foolish to whitewash a case with damming evidence to prove his case if it was to end up in the courts after?
Answer, YES some do get whitewashed even in the face of overwhelming evidence and Im sure some here have seen or even been part of such acts. it depends if your friend is complaining about Policy that was the reason or part of his redress for example, terms of employment, Manning control ect, this subject is becoming a sticky subject even more so now, with the ERA.
No organisation will ever find against its own policy's if such policy's could be proved in a court of law to be illegal. However the officers on the Army board would have to stand by for incomming. if shuch a case were to go to the courts after a redress whitewash.
Im sure some on Arrse could think of other reasons for such a cowardly act as whitewash action on a redress.
Keep your eye on this one, this PQ is about to smackone or two in the face
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to Manning Control have made official complaints of harassment and bullying of them or their family during the MCP process in the last six years; and what steps are used to punish individuals who are proven to have bullied or harassed soldiers. 
6 Oct 2003 : Column 1170W
Mr. Caplin: The data requested are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The Ministry of Defence has a policy of zero tolerance towards all forms of bullying and harassment. Appropriate disciplinary or administrative action will be taken against any individual(s) found guilty of practising or condoning such behaviour.
The point of a Redress under chap 70 is to have a complaint under such circumstances investigated and if the Army Board can see in the evidence before them, that Harassment occurred, call in the RMP. however as pointed out before the redress policy is far from getting there. for a Pte, Lcpl ect subject to harassment to just swan up to the local RMP is a very worrying task, normally the RMP will go directly to the Soldiers CO. once a complaint has been lodged. something that has proved to go against a soldier before. so what is the solution? or are soldiers just buggerd? should there be an independant redress were the chain of command has no sway?
I don't believe any organisation would find against it self, inparticular the Army. we have all witnessed at some time in our careers how the system can be corrupt, and bluff its way to the point of bear face lying, im sure future cases will prove this and hopefully kick these people up the Arrest
Sldrs going to the RMP IMHO is not the answer, far better to use the chain of command. It would be a brave commander who when told about alledged harrassment from someone under his command, does nothing about it. He/she who is being harrassed must record you they told and when. They is very powerful evidence in any subsequent investigation.
It would be a brave commander who when told about alledged harrassment from someone under his command, does nothing about it. He/she who is being harrassed must record you they told and when. They is very powerful evidence in any subsequent investigation
I have seen at first hand how on more then one occation"very powerfull evidance" in the complainants favour and very Pish poor explanations with no evidence to back up the lame excuses by Officers for their actions practically when Harassment and policys are the issue. possible forseen costs and the good name of the Army in costly littigation is a very powerfull factor when the Army Board decide who is telling the truth and who is bluffing their case, when briefed..not the redress brief but the ALS brief. "TIME TO GET THE BLINKERS ON MAJ GEN..AGAIN"
I would say there needs to be an independent body outside the chain Of Command, if it has to be a civil lawyer then so be it but at least soldiers will have more confidence in the system that is still even with the recent changes, very flawed and open to abuse from CO to ACGS.C IN C
What was the Army Board wearing when viewing the case of Sergeant Howard
Blinkers again, and what happend to the members of the Army Board that got it so wrong?
A spokeswoman from the Ministry of Defence said last night: "As a matter of law, the outcome of the redress was in error and should have found that Sgt Howard had suffered racial harrasment.
"It has also been accepted that there were procedural problems with the way the redress was carried out."
badlad, are you on drugs however I see your point. but A redress is the only option for A soldier. not the perfect one but if you are going to task the MOD in court, you need to prove that you fully availed your self of the Redress system first. judges take a very dim view if you did not bother just because its a waste of time.
I should like to quote a little further from a parlimentry survey. called why did you not seek official redress?'
"The answers to this question show why the Army's grievance procedure is not working. Respondents could identify more than one reason if appropriate, and therefore absolute numbers do not match the 89 individuals who said they had taken no action. Forty individuals ... said that they did not complain because they believed such a step might adversely affect their careers. Twenty seven ... thought they would not be taken seriously; 23 ... feared increased discrimination; while 20 ... did not complain because the person to whom they would have to make representations"--
Still stick in the redress. you need to show you attempted to address the complaint using the system, even if the Army Board has been through Lord Hutton's book of
"HOW TO WEAR BLINKERS IN PUBLIC" priced Â£19; 50 at all leading books stores. a judge if you take a complaint that far will wonder why not and if your complaint is whitewashed and its evident then you will have a stronger case. DO IT, BUT BE QUICK ABOUT IT.
keep yor eye on this one
Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford):To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with respect to (a) the Army, (b) the Naval Service and (c) the Royal Air Force how many personnel have initiated redress procedures since 1997; and in how many cases in (i) the Army, (ii) the Naval Service and (iii) the Royal Air Force the complainant has been successful. http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/yone_manning/vpost?id=31