Three Month Warning Order continuance...?

Hi chaps,

I currently have a soldier who was long term downgraded and upon upgrading, failed his PFT. He than went onto a 3MWO. At the end of that order and before he was placed on the second 3MWO, he suffered a leg fracture which led to him being downgraded for a further 5 and half months or so. It was my interpretation of the relevant AGAI chapter that I would be putting this soldier onto another first 3MWO given that around 6 months has elapsed and given his med grading over that period however, there are some, not limited to within my company, that are demanding that he be put straight onto the second 3MWO. Other than this clear lack of fitness (that I'm told was improving) this soldier is fine. This business doesn't sit well with me so I am interested to hear if any others have been/ been guided down this route.

I have a feeling that your instinct to be cautious is right.

What was the requirement of the 3MWO? Presumably pass one or more PFTs. Presumably he is currently excused PFTs, therefore the requirement could not be met before the 3MWO ran out. Fairness is a basic requirement of AGAI 67 action.

Presumably he is expected to make a full recovery from the fracture, therefore PAP10 does not apply, at least not yet?
Yeah, as I understand it the timeline goes something like this:
soldier was downgraded for a period >4 years. He was then upgraded and put on transitional phys. Then after that time he failed the PFT's and was put onto remedial pt with a 3MWO (the requirement being - meet the minimum requirement for fitness, 2xPFT). After that 3MWO ended, this soldier broke his leg, a minor fracture, that saw him temp unable to walk properly. Soldier was told to sign second 3MWO even though he had been told by MO that he'd be downgraded that afternoon. (this was before I got to this unit) MO downgraded him for 5 and half months. He was then upgraded and given 6 weeks transitional phys again. PFT was subsequently failed and is now facing the second 3MWO.

I have a strong sense of right and wrong and I have to say this feels wrong. I don't think it's fair considering the period of time that has elapsed.
I would go with your gut feeling. If you think it is wrong, it probably is.

Since he was a "good soldier" I would give him the support he needs to recover as long as he buys into the remedial phys.
No. He still failed to meet the standard but we can postulate that he would have passed within the following 3MWO assuming that he progressed at the same rate that he had on the first. 4 years is a long time to be not running I should imagine.

Ultimately, if he was below the standard before his injury, he's going to be further behind the curb after it.
The 3 MWO is designed to give a soldier a kick *********** that he is failing, that his failings are (list them) and then set him the goals he needs to obtain to correct those failings. If cannot pass a PFT then a 3 MWO is perfectly OK provided the target set is to pass the PFT. If he then breaks his leg, he cannot possibly fulfil the 'contract' and should then be given a further chace to pass his PFT once he is declared fit to do so by the MO.

You would leave yourself open to a SC if you stick him on a 2nd 3MWo when he has no chance of passing it.

Hope that helps
Gentlemen, you have restored my faith in the quality of at least some of our leaders.
I fear this may be about to leave my hands. Our adjutant seems rather excited over the whole thing and my disagreement with their handling, I think, will see me outside "the circle of trust". I shall encourage this chap to make a service complaint, if the unti pushes him through straight onto 3MWO number 2, myself.

Cheers for the advice again.
The essence of the system is fairness. If the Formal Warning is on the basis of inability to pass the PFA and he was not able to pass it during the period then it would not be fair to discharge on those grounds alone. Advise the Adjutant to ring PS2(A) for a bit of advice.
I find it troubling how we treat AGAI 67 like it is the bible but interpret it differently for juniors, NCO's, SNCO's and officers. In escence, it depends on the ranks involved. This is certainly not in the spirit of the document. It also has massive gaps. In this instance, there is no mention of suspensions of warning orders so that bit is free to be "made up on the spot". I have flagged this so many times and it creates a problem whenever and where ever I have. How can we action the rules if we are not all equal before them?
It does. Thank you. It's just a shame that the AGAI is so open to interpretation on this issue. As usually it's interpreted by the wrong people.
Agree with the sentiment. Bde/Garr G1, through the Adjt, should always be approached to arbitrate in cases such as these - it puts the whole issue on a sound footing and allows you plenty of opportunity to air your views.
Yes but where is the line? If there is nothing in black and white within AGAI to reference this particular situation then where does that leave us?

Thanks to all for the input so far.

Similar threads