What's the point in a pre-three Month Warning Order Medical Review

Discussion in 'Military Discipline' started by DesktopCommando, Jan 9, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bit of a Q for those that can actually understand AGAI 67, been asked a Question regarding a Soldiers 3 mth bender.

    A soldier fails two PFA's 7 days apart, then is sent to the Med Centre for review, is the medical review to find out if she is fit for remedial or if there is a undermining problem for the failure ?


    Turn's out Med centre finds problem with her leg's and is now in the process of getting specialist treatment, but she is still placed on 3 Mth'r regardless because she failed 2 PFA's. Conditions are pass 2 PFA's within 3 mth's or be busted, placed on another then kicked out (med centre has yet to downgrade but place her on Limited duties which included no lower body PT (running) ).

    There maybe a possible service complaint in this since, but I am trying to find out if this is just a normal procedural route
  2. Doesn't always work that way though, I know someone who failed a PFT. He has asthma and is P3 because of it but still ended up on a 3 month bender for failing.
  3. Is there anything in the AGAI procedures which state this, or is it at the OC's discretion (his rules, lump it)
  4. If the med centre said they could do the PFT with aid of inhaler then bender is fair. If after second failure med cen says asthma worse and is reason for failure then no bender.

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
  5. Service Complaint should be submitted if medically backed up.
  6. Sorry this is not in English for you to understand.

    P3 Soldier fail's two PFA's
    Initial Interview for 3 Mth Warning Order
    Sent to Med Centre for Fit for Remedial assessment - found previously undiagnosed condition on legs -sent for specialist treatment)
    Sick Chit says no lower limb PT - 28 days limited duties (under specialist care)
    Placed on Formal 3 Mth Warning Order for failing PFA and not being to standard of JNCO (because failed PFA)
    Warning Order states pass 2 PFA's within 3 Mth's or Bust to LCPL and place of another, concluding that discharged, without pension.

    Further to this SJAR time on 31st January Troop Officer has stated no recommendation because of failing PF......
  7. I refer you to my previous answers.

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
  8. that was for Drivers_log understanding
  9. If she's only been put on 28 days light duties the 3 month warning order stands, if after the 28 days the specialist recommends further treatment, the action should be reviewed and then PAP10 procedures will be carried out.
    That way they'll be able to work out if the leg condition was due to her or the service.
    Troop OC is right because it was correct at time of writing
  10. PAP 10 Chap 1 para 0107:

    b. P3 – Medically fit for duty with minor employment limitations. The P3 grade is to be used for an individual who has a medical condition that prevents him/her undertaking the full range of military duties. Such individuals are able to perform useful duties in barracks, but may not be able to carry out all aspects of their employment. They may require medication or medical followup. The individual’s condition is unlikely to significantly deteriorate if there is an interruption to the supply of medication or the delay in planned medical review. The individual’s condition is unlikely to impose a demand on the medical services if deployed on operations. A medical risk assessment by the unit, supported by an up to date Appendix 9 and if appropriate additional advice from a Medical Officer (MO) or a Regional Occupational Medicine (OM) Consultant is required for routine activities, OTXs and deployment. This grade will attract a JMES deployment standard of Medically limited deployability (MLD).

    Check the Appendix 9 and see if the soldier was excused PFT and if so for how long (when was the review of the soldiers JMES due). Also see if the unit had a qualified Health & SAfety Advisor conduct a Medical Risk Assessment on the soldier.

    Annex C to AGAI 67 (Minor Administrative Action) Paragraph 1, 5 and 6 hold key info:

    1. It is Army policy that AGAI 67 is to be used as the basis to deal with minor professional and personal failings in order to meet the stated standards of behaviour or performance. Minor Administrative Action provides commanders at all levels with a swiftly delivered and reviewed, legal, fair and formally regulated way of dealing with minor failings in standards and performance.

    It could be argued that the sanction awarded is not fair and should not have been awarded if the soldier was medically excused PFA due to a previously non-diagnosed medical complaint, the treatment for which has not been completed.

    5. A Failing is Identified. If a failing cannot be dealt with through the use of minor informal rebukes and corrections of normal Service life, then formal action may be considered. The Originating Officer must decide this himself, taking advice from the chain of command if necessary. If there is any doubt about the appropriateness of taking Minor Administrative Action then further advice should be sought (including if necessary legal advice) before any Minor Administrative Action is taken.

    It could be argued that further advice should have been sought from the Medical Officer before the Minor Admin Action was taken as, with the medical advice on the appendix 9 the only really appropriate sanction that could be awarded (pass 2 x PFA within 3 months) cannot be undertaken as treatment has not been completed and the soldier has not been re-assessed for their fitness to undertake lower body exercise i.e. PFA.

    6. Investigation. If, after initial investigation, it is considered that the Service Test has been breached and minor action is considered appropriate the matter should be investigated. In every case, the matter should be investigated fully to the extent appropriate; the person originating the action is to gather sufficient facts in order to decide the most appropriate course. This may involve very little, but the factors which should be considered in deciding whether minor action is appropriate include (there may be additional relevant factors in individual cases):

    a. The context in which the incident occurred and its impact on operational effectiveness. For example, if the unit or ship was about to deploy or was under sailing orders then an incidence of being late would be much more serious than at other times and Minor Administrative Action is likely to be inappropriate.

    b. The extent of adverse impact or likely impact on the individual, unit or service.

    c. The rank or rate of the individual or level of responsibility.

    d. The age and maturity of the individual.

    e. The individual’s previous conduct and warnings.

    f. Any relevant personal circumstances or mitigating factors.

    g. The individual’s response to the discovery of the incident.

    The fundamental principles of the standard of proof, fairness and avoidance of delay described in paragraphs 67.011, 67.012 and 67.016 must be followed.

    It could be argued that the investigation, if one was undertaken, was not investigated fully to the extent appropriate and that the person originating the action did not gather (or disregarded) sufficient facts in order to decide the most appropriate course. It could further be argued that the fundamental principles of the standard of proof and fairness have not been upheld.

    It is also certainly not the remit of the unit to threaten to discharge a soldier and withhold their pension for failing their PFT due to medical problems. It could however be correct to advise the soldier that failure to be successfully upgraded to MFD may lead to an administrative discharge for medical reasons under PAP 10 and the appropriate paragraph in QR's.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Cheers for all your help, found AGAI 67 on Internet, reading 67.047

    67.047 Duration. A Formal Warning will include monitoring performance, initially for
    a period of 3 months but this may be extended to 6 months. During this time the
    serviceman should not normally be posted, attend courses or be promoted although he
    may be selected.


    ANNEX E to AGAI 67 Para 8 b

    8.The immediate effects of a Formal Warning are:

    b. To place a bar on, but not selection for, promotion for the duration of the
    Formal Warning. If the serviceman’s performance is then deemed to be satisfactory
    and the Formal Warning is withdrawn, the serviceman may be promoted in
    accordance with the board selection.

    Its a start, but still nothing (yet) on the medical side of life.