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!

Why PVR when you can Immediate Medical Discharge?

A genuine question for the bear-pit – why PVR when you can apparently Immediate Medical Discharge? It appears that should you pop into the Med Centre and “withdraw consent for your medical grading to be accessible by your CoC” you will find yourself “medically discharged/ retired with immediate effect”!!!

The references are below – but I’m genuinely curious why I’ve not heard of anyone doing this?!


ABN 0516 8 Jan 2016

"6. Version 4 [of PAP 10] clarifies that a SP who refuses to consent to the CoC having access to their Joint Medical Employment Standard (JMES) grading will be assumed unfit for all military service and medically discharged with immediate effect (Chapter 10, Para 1029)[1].

1 Some of the benefits of a med discharge will be forfeited including invaliding leave and resettlement not earned through reckonable service."


Version 4 of PULHEEMS Administrative Pamphlet 2010 (PAP 10) published 2016.

"1029. Should an individual not consent to the CoC having access to their medical grading (including their JMES) then the MO is to enter the JMES of A6 L6 M6 E1 onto DMICP. This JMES is not a grade that could occur in any other circumstance and will inform the CoC that the SP has not consented for their medical grade to be released. Following this grading the SP should be interviewed (and this should be recorded) by their CoC and it should be explained that their consent will enable an informed assessment of the health risks of their employability. It should be made clear to the SP exactly who ‘needs to know’ and what the extent of dissemination will be - explaining the control measures and circle of knowledge may help to reassure the SP and in turn inform a positive decision. Without an understanding of the SP’s JMES, the CoC is no longer able to meet their requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. In the absence of this information the only safe way for the executive to manage the risk relating to a condition they have no knowledge of is to assume the SP is unfit for all military service and medically discharge / retire them with immediate effect. When working out a medical discharge / retirement date APC OH branch will take account of any outstanding Annual Leave, Terminal Leave and any Resettlement Leave earned through their career. They will not be entitled to invaliding leave or additional resettlement leave that would be granted specifically for a normal Medical Discharge."
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
A genuine question for the bear-pit – why PVR when you can apparently Immediate Medical Discharge? It appears that should you pop into the Med Centre and “withdraw consent for your medical grading to be accessible by your CoC” you will find yourself “medically discharged/ retired with immediate effect”!!!

The references are below – but I’m genuinely curious why I’ve not heard of anyone doing this?!


ABN 0516 8 Jan 2016

"6. Version 4 [of PAP 10] clarifies that a SP who refuses to consent to the CoC having access to their Joint Medical Employment Standard (JMES) grading will be assumed unfit for all military service and medically discharged with immediate effect (Chapter 10, Para 1029)[1].

1 Some of the benefits of a med discharge will be forfeited including invaliding leave and resettlement not earned through reckonable service."


Version 4 of PULHEEMS Administrative Pamphlet 2010 (PAP 10) published 2016.

"1029. Should an individual not consent to the CoC having access to their medical grading (including their JMES) then the MO is to enter the JMES of A6 L6 M6 E1 onto DMICP. This JMES is not a grade that could occur in any other circumstance and will inform the CoC that the SP has not consented for their medical grade to be released. Following this grading the SP should be interviewed (and this should be recorded) by their CoC and it should be explained that their consent will enable an informed assessment of the health risks of their employability. It should be made clear to the SP exactly who ‘needs to know’ and what the extent of dissemination will be - explaining the control measures and circle of knowledge may help to reassure the SP and in turn inform a positive decision. Without an understanding of the SP’s JMES, the CoC is no longer able to meet their requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. In the absence of this information the only safe way for the executive to manage the risk relating to a condition they have no knowledge of is to assume the SP is unfit for all military service and medically discharge / retire them with immediate effect. When working out a medical discharge / retirement date APC OH branch will take account of any outstanding Annual Leave, Terminal Leave and any Resettlement Leave earned through their career. They will not be entitled to invaliding leave or additional resettlement leave that would be granted specifically for a normal Medical Discharge."
@widow11 will be along shortly to answer your question.
 
there must be some kind of catch.
 
Sounds along the lines of refusing to soldier.
 
A genuine question for the bear-pit – why PVR when you can apparently Immediate Medical Discharge? It appears that should you pop into the Med Centre and “withdraw consent for your medical grading to be accessible by your CoC” you will find yourself “medically discharged/ retired with immediate effect”!!!

The references are below – but I’m genuinely curious why I’ve not heard of anyone doing this?!


ABN 0516 8 Jan 2016

"6. Version 4 [of PAP 10] clarifies that a SP who refuses to consent to the CoC having access to their Joint Medical Employment Standard (JMES) grading will be assumed unfit for all military service and medically discharged with immediate effect (Chapter 10, Para 1029)[1].

1 Some of the benefits of a med discharge will be forfeited including invaliding leave and resettlement not earned through reckonable service."


Version 4 of PULHEEMS Administrative Pamphlet 2010 (PAP 10) published 2016.

"1029. Should an individual not consent to the CoC having access to their medical grading (including their JMES) then the MO is to enter the JMES of A6 L6 M6 E1 onto DMICP. This JMES is not a grade that could occur in any other circumstance and will inform the CoC that the SP has not consented for their medical grade to be released. Following this grading the SP should be interviewed (and this should be recorded) by their CoC and it should be explained that their consent will enable an informed assessment of the health risks of their employability. It should be made clear to the SP exactly who ‘needs to know’ and what the extent of dissemination will be - explaining the control measures and circle of knowledge may help to reassure the SP and in turn inform a positive decision. Without an understanding of the SP’s JMES, the CoC is no longer able to meet their requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. In the absence of this information the only safe way for the executive to manage the risk relating to a condition they have no knowledge of is to assume the SP is unfit for all military service and medically discharge / retire them with immediate effect. When working out a medical discharge / retirement date APC OH branch will take account of any outstanding Annual Leave, Terminal Leave and any Resettlement Leave earned through their career. They will not be entitled to invaliding leave or additional resettlement leave that would be granted specifically for a normal Medical Discharge."

There will be a lot of people in their Veng happy to see this.
 
It was the legal eagles smartfcuker response to those individuals who just wanted the MOD to comply with Clinical Governance and the Data Protection Act 98, as well as Access to Health Records Act.

Any medical patient in the UK may withhold their consent for their medical information to be shared, that's their right. It's also an extension of their human rights, the same rights and freedoms they're entitled to along with every other British citizen and they're not revoked by any agreement to be placed under Service Law. It's of considerable concern therefore, that most every military person who has served their country, maybe spilt their blood, possibly lost their limbs or senses and for some ultimately sacrificed their lives to protect those rights, for themselves and others that is being let down.

Unbelieveably they're being let down by the MOD that wants to remove them for AF personnel, but it knows it can't do that without creating a public sh*tstorm. So, PAP10(v4) was amended in Jan 16 in order to use the pretence that by not having an accurate JMES coded on JPA (which is informed by the medics system - DMICP), the individual could not be managed safely by the CoC and therefore you could be immediately medically retired without your rights being violated. What an utter crock of sh*te!

When the average savvy squaddie chooses not to give consent for their medical board results to be shared to all in sundry immediately after the board, at least until they've actually seen the published medical board report (which is invariably a 2 person board with a 3rd in absentia, so they don't see the report for 2-3 weeks after the board), had the opportunity to seek advice during the 3 weeks allowed by the same policy and submitted their appeal if they feel they have grounds.

All in PAP10, but time costs money, so you may have thought old Phil Shiner was a tw*t scheister lawyer, but these are (y)our own people screwing you over!
 
Thanks - are you saying the effect is that should if you find yourself downgraded but wish to keep this confidential until you have seen the report and/or appealed against the downgrading then you end up with an immediate medical discharge? Sounds like a stinker.

Has anyone heard of this being used to crash out when the time is right to go?
 
Thanks - are you saying the effect is that should if you find yourself downgraded but wish to keep this confidential until you have seen the report and/or appealed against the downgrading then you end up with an immediate medical discharge? Sounds like a stinker.

Has anyone heard of this being used to crash out when the time is right to go?
It is, and down to the individual if they want to turn the tables on the MOD, but personally I feel it's another ill thought out policy, and more appropriate for kindergarten rules than a 'grown ups' Army! Either we have rights of informed consent or we don't, but is just penny pinching BS!
 
It was the legal eagles smartfcuker response to those individuals who just wanted the MOD to comply with Clinical Governance and the Data Protection Act 98, as well as Access to Health Records Act.

Any medical patient in the UK may withhold their consent for their medical information to be shared, that's their right. It's also an extension of their human rights, the same rights and freedoms they're entitled to along with every other British citizen and they're not revoked by any agreement to be placed under Service Law. It's of considerable concern therefore, that most every military person who has served their country, maybe spilt their blood, possibly lost their limbs or senses and for some ultimately sacrificed their lives to protect those rights, for themselves and others that is being let down.

Unbelieveably they're being let down by the MOD that wants to remove them for AF personnel, but it knows it can't do that without creating a public sh*tstorm. So, PAP10(v4) was amended in Jan 16 in order to use the pretence that by not having an accurate JMES coded on JPA (which is informed by the medics system - DMICP), the individual could not be managed safely by the CoC and therefore you could be immediately medically retired without your rights being violated. What an utter crock of sh*te!

When the average savvy squaddie chooses not to give consent for their medical board results to be shared to all in sundry immediately after the board, at least until they've actually seen the published medical board report (which is invariably a 2 person board with a 3rd in absentia, so they don't see the report for 2-3 weeks after the board), had the opportunity to seek advice during the 3 weeks allowed by the same policy and submitted their appeal if they feel they have grounds.

All in PAP10, but time costs money, so you may have thought old Phil Shiner was a tw*t scheister lawyer, but these are (y)our own people screwing you over!
JMES is recorded on Appendix 9 and entered on the Medical system. Units don't have access to the Medical system and are therefore reliant on Appendix 9. Appendix 9 informs the individual and unit of:

JMES
Deployability/Operational role limitations
Trg capability
Trade specific limitations
Non-specific limitations
Medical support requirements
Medical risk
Forecast of recovery

Appendix 9 is basically a statement of risk and not a statement of medical issues therefore it is far from a Human Rights concern in fact not to complete and comply with an Appendix 9 would clearly be a breach of the Duty of Care and a serious H&S issue which could, in event of further injury/death, result in the MoD being spanked quite heavily in the Courts.

On FMB the individual is asked for their consent for the Med Board report (FMED 23) to be distributed, in fact if I remember correctly the individual signs to say yes or no. How saying no would help inform or change any decision the CoC has to make/confirm beats the hell out of me because there is a process that can be followed if the individual does not agree the decision!

Phil Shiner has been confirmed as a tw*t and scheister lawyer and has been thrown out of the profession, the MoD are an employer attempting to follow the rules/guidance and/or attempt to have such written in their favour. A vast difference.
 
Oy. I'm that olde as well :)

WAH Shield on

Lack of Moral Fibre.

WAH Shield off.

They don't write medical gradings like that anymore - its all so wishy-washy these days!
 
JMES is recorded on Appendix 9 and entered on the Medical system. Units don't have access to the Medical system and are therefore reliant on Appendix 9. Appendix 9 informs the individual and unit of:

JMES
Deployability/Operational role limitations
Trg capability
Trade specific limitations
Non-specific limitations
Medical support requirements
Medical risk
Forecast of recovery

Appendix 9 is basically a statement of risk and not a statement of medical issues therefore it is far from a Human Rights concern in fact not to complete and comply with an Appendix 9 would clearly be a breach of the Duty of Care and a serious H&S issue which could, in event of further injury/death, result in the MoD being spanked quite heavily in the Courts.

On FMB the individual is asked for their consent for the Med Board report (FMED 23) to be distributed, in fact if I remember correctly the individual signs to say yes or no. How saying no would help inform or change any decision the CoC has to make/confirm beats the hell out of me because there is a process that can be followed if the individual does not agree the decision!

Phil Shiner has been confirmed as a tw*t and scheister lawyer and has been thrown out of the profession, the MoD are an employer attempting to follow the rules/guidance and/or attempt to have such written in their favour. A vast difference.
You are only partially correct about consent, as Appendix 17 specifically asks you to confirm 'consent withheld', and various PAP10 appendices are distributed to all in sundry, including the Appendix 9 to the Unit Health Committee. Appendix 17 also states quite clearly, 'you may withdraw your consent at any time..', and can tick the box for 'I wish to see and have opportunity to comment on the draft FMed23' . Duty of care is an issue for the CoC certainly, but it's not enhanced by removing a Serviceperson's rights, it's just a sledgehammer to crack the nut!

There are clear guidelines provided concerning that draft FMed23, but it is rarely produced within a 2-3 weeks after the FMB, and as I made clear in the earlier post, it is not even confirmed as the official board decision until the third member (usually in absentia) has seen it and signed it. By virtue of the same PAP10, the Serviceperson cannot start to ask for ANY guidance on that report until it has been produced, that is the nub of the problem! They then have 3 weeks to challenge the content for accuracy and/or make an appeal to the Regional Clinical Director.

In other words if there is any disagreement over medical judgment / prognosis at the FMB, how is the individual to know what is contained in the report of those proceedings? If there is conjecture or concern that contrary medical opinions were not considered, why would an individual give their immediate consent unsighted?

By way of example, if you had concerns when you went to hospital for an invasive proceedure, but had received contrary advice about the requirement, why would you consent to an operation without consideration of alternate treatment? If you withold consent in those circumstances, the decision on surgery is reviewed with the surgeon or delayed maybe for additional tests, the hospital doesn't stick you outside the gate and tell you to do one like some Fred Flintstone character sticking Dino out on the porch with the empty milk bottles!

The same applies here, there clearly needs to be protection for the individual (not just a pathetic wibble about a pretence at compliance with Clinical Governance), whilst management of risk for the employer is reasonable, but 'chucking the baby out with the bathwater' is not a sensible resolution! It will be abused, because it is insensible in its current form, and it will inevitably cause more distrust of a MOD system that's already struggling to retain their people.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Top