Dress debate wearing thin

Pattern pending: As reported last month, the British Army is set to switch its camouflage clothing to a multi-terrain pattern that is effective in all environments. The new design (above centre) – which was developed in America – will replace the traditional green clothing (left) and desert gear (right).
Picture: MoD/Crown Copyright

WELL done on the excellent article in January’s Soldier on the Army’s new camouflage clothing [which is scheduled to be issued to deploying personnel from March].

While a new design of DPM [Disruptive Pattern Material] is long overdue, I can only imagine the reaction of some regimental sergeant majors to the picture which accompanied the story. Seeing three soldiers wearing uniform not tucked into their trousers will have had them and officers everywhere shaking their heads, outraged at the sight of these “scruffy” individuals.

Personally, it was good to see the kit being worn as it was designed to be. I am currently deployed on Op Herrick 11 and in some locations here in theatre there are dress policies where shirts have to be worn tucked in.

Can we concentrate on winning the war first and worry about the way we look once that is done?

It seems that the only audience who are concerned with soldiers’ appearance are those people sat behind desks with shirts tucked into their trousers.

I don’t believe for one minute that the public sit at home reading newspapers or watching television thinking “our boys are doing us proud, but I wish they could decide is it sleeves up or down?”. – Name and address supplied.

“ultra-short hair”

IN his reply to a letter from a soldier bemoaning the requirement for “ultra-short hair” (Talkback, December), Brig Mike Griffiths was quite right to highlight that company sergeant majors are there to enforce discipline and ensure that haircuts reflect regulations, and that one aspect of leadership is setting an example for your subordinates to follow.

However, it should be noted that regulations do not state that individuals are to have their heads shaved, merely that hair length is to be above the collar and ears and neat and tidy.

The “frustrated” soldier made a valid point that needlessly shaved heads can give the wrong impression to the public and police that Service personnel are uneducated, bad mannered and a likely source of trouble. Just consider the impression some members of the British National Party create on television with their shaved heads and bomber jackets. Perception is everything.

If shaved heads are a must for professional soldiers, why don’t officers lead by example and trim their own locks accordingly?

The regulations are applicable to all, so it’s surely shaved heads all round or everyone should be allowed to grow their hair to the same length set by those bastions of high standards, the Guards’ officers. – Name and address supplied.

‘What’s the state of play with ballistic plates?’

In theatres now: The new Osprey Assault body armour, pictured on show at last year’s Defence Vehicle Dynamics show, has all the stopping power of the current Osprey but is closer fitting, less bulky and easier to move in
Picture: Steve Dock

I AM currently attached to 11 Light Brigade on Operation Herrick 11. Living and working from one of the patrol bases, I appreciate the time it takes to move equipment to locations in Afghanistan.

However, having been issued in theatre with the new Osprey Assault body armour, it was disappointing to discover that the kit had arrived with only medium-size Mark 7 helmets and minus the system’s much-reported lightweight plates.

A defence clothing instruction accompanying the armour explained that we were to remove the protective cover from our existing front and rear ceramic plates and insert those into the Osprey Assault vest.

This advice horrified those of us who have previously been deployed on Op Telic as we remember being routinely told that this protective cover was a vital part of the ballistic plate.

This concern was underlined by the bold red writing at the bottom of the instruction which read: “Under no circumstances should the plate be worn in the standard Osprey system without the protective cover being fitted.”

Is there an explanation for this conflicting advice or has there been a major fault in the procurement and supply system? – Name and address supplied.

Maj (Retd) Allan Law, SO2 Mat Sp, responds: Approximately 5,000 sets of Osprey Assault body armour and Mark 7 helmets were task issued direct to theatre in September 2009.
The stocks are theatre-controlled and allocated in accordance with theatre priorities. An additional supply, to meet theatre requirements, will be made early this year.
The original intention was to issue the new equipment with Osprey Assault ballistic plates.
When rolled out the new plates will provide identical ballistic protection to Osprey plates but, at the time of writing, they are still under development.
The use of Osprey plates, without the rubber bump cover, in Osprey Assault armour provides the same ballistic protection. The cover was only used to prevent wear and tear to the edges of the plates when worn with Osprey as the plate is mounted outside the vest and can be damaged when adopting the prone position.
The bump cover can still be used but creates extra bulk. The protective cover also prevented the plates from moving inside the pocket.
In Osprey Assault vests the plates are mounted in internal pockets which are lined with a “touch and close” material designed to prevent movement and damage. Therefore, the plates do not need the bump protection when worn in the Osprey Assault system.
The guidance in the instruction leaflet and the fielding plan is correct; nonetheless, all plates should be handled with care and any damage reported by the user asap.

‘We warrant more respect’

I FEEL the need to add my two-penn’orth to the letter from WO2 J Moreman (Talkback, December) regarding the warrant issued to warrant officers across the Services.

I too have negative feelings about the standard of this document. It really is poor when the warrant states “signed by my own hand”, yet is clearly a facsimile of the signature of the Secretary of State for Defence.

The lack of a wax seal is understandable as I’m sure it would only be damaged in transit, but surely an embossed seal would not break the MoD’s bank.

Furthermore, the delay in issuing the warrant can sometimes add to the disappointment. I was promoted to WO2 in May 2008 but did not receive the signed warrant until June 2009.

Each year the Army promotes approximately 850 personnel to the rank of warrant officer.

Given that it has taken approximately 420 days for my warrant to be signed, is producing two warrants a day really too much to ask?

Give the warrant officer community some credit and please don’t use cost as an excuse.

As we serve more time, we see more and more traditions being watered down. Please don’t let this be one of them! – WO2 (QMSI) J M Blower, 106 (WR) Fd Sqn, Sheffield.

JPA: Juvenile Proposal Adjutant

MP-proof?: The British Army’s self-service Joint Personnel Administration system
Picture: Steve Dock

I READ with dismay the note from “a frustrated adjutant” in January’s Talkback which suggested that, following last summer’s claims scandal, MPs should be made to submit expenses through the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) system.

In the letter the author refers to the input of “an incompetent clerk” along with the idiosyncrasies of JPA and its inherent non-availability being enough to put MPs off even contemplating submitting a claim.

I hope the inference of incompetence was not addressed to the many AGC(SPS) clerks within units who, more often than not, and with little or no training themselves, do their utmost to assist personnel with JPA-related problems.

The frustration the correspondent experiences with JPA must be small in comparison to that which we as human resources staff experience when things go wrong. If the criticism was aimed at the AGC then I would like to put on record that I have served with a number of “incompetent adjutants” who have been the cause of these problems. – WO2 (SQMS) Vickers, RAWO, 204 Hospital.

AS a civilian clerk I was relieved to read the article about the new camouflage clothing and for the clarification that the two designs it will be replacing were deliberate.
I had always hoped that was the case, but had my suspicions that the desert version was simply the traditional green kit washed in the wrong soap powder. – Robert Steel, LF-E2 Pers Ops & Plans HQLF.

I REFER to the response given to the recent letter about soldiers’ hairstyles, “Cut us some slack” (December).
Although I always had short hair while serving, and still do, I appreciate this look is not everyone’s cup of tea.
I felt the reply given by Brig Mike Griffiths was rather terse. The writer appeared to be complaining about the shortness of hair and scalp-like cuts in particular.
The answer given does not mention that “the hair should be kept neat and tidy”, but instead endorses the view of the company sergeant major in question that hair should be “ultra-short”. This was never a requirement during my days in uniform and I’ll bet it still isn’t. Does this mean that the brigadier is an advocate of “the scalp” haircut? Young soldiers like to at least have a chance with the girls when out-and-about, which, let’s face it, isn’t very often these days.
Incidentally, from my own experience it was officers who were the worst offenders when it came to hair length. We should cut the lads a little slack when they are back in the UK. – Victor Hunt, veteran.

HAVING re-enlisted in the Grenadier Guards after being in civvy street for six years, I recently returned to reading Soldier.
Some of the Talkback letters over the past few months regarding the award of the Golden Jubilee Medal have really struck a chord with me.
I was serving around the time the decoration was introduced, but did not receive it due to the qualifying criteria [five years’ service in either the Regular or Territorial Army].
How can it be fair to gift Princes William and Harry with the medal and yet overlook those Service personnel who were actually in uniform at the time of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee?
Either the gifted medals should be withdrawn or the eligibility criteria should be extended to include all those who were serving in 2002. As things stand I feel cheated. – Name and address supplied.

I INVITE the “frustrated adjutant” (Talkback, January) to make contact with me and discuss any issues he/she has with JPA, bearing in mind the comprehensive Business Process Guides and many other e-learning packages on the system. Yes, JPA can be slow and it takes time to resolve issues but it is a dramatic improvement on Unicom. And in response to the “incompetent clerk” comment, the adage “a bad workman always blames his tools” comes to mind.
If the adjutant in question is reading this I would ask that they do not generalise in the future. My Combat Human Resource Specialists (the term clerk disappeared over a year ago) give 100 per cent all of the time, always pushing and maintaining the “right first time” approach. – Capt C L Hughes, a frustrated detachment commander, 3 RHA.

PERHAPS the “frustrated adjutant” wouldn’t find JPA so “user-unfriendly” if he/she actually took time to learn how to use it. If a private soldier can do so, why can’t a commissioned captain? One final point, the adjutant should be aware that we are Combat HR Specialists and not clerks. – Name and address supplied.

I AM responding to the letter from a member of the Territorial Army who suggested that the MoD should use Regular soldiers as couriers in a bid to cut costs (Talkback, December).
If Mr Emery thinks for one minute that the Regular Army has the time on its hands to act as the MoD’s postal service, he is clearly living in dreamland. Does he really believe that those soldiers not deployed on ops are just sitting around doing nothing?
As for the “savings” of such a move, he’s obviously not considered the running costs of vehicles or the price of fuel. Soldiers may be paid “24 hours a day” but that doesn’t make them exempt from the rules mandating driving hours. – Name and address supplied.

AS a member of the Reserve Forces who has recently been promoted to sergeant, please could you explain why I am not eligible for the SNCO mess dress uniform provision. – Sgt J Connolly, 4 Para.

Brig Mike Griffiths, DPS(A), responds: The grant can only be paid to Regular personnel who are promoted on or after April 1, 2009 to either acting or substantive rank. The grant is not payable to members of the Reserve Forces. Regular personnel were given priority because of the greater frequency with which they are likely to attend functions in mess dress. Indeed, Queen’s Regulations have now been amended so that those who receive the grant will be required to wear mess dress when appropriate.
Those that are not eligible remain entitled to attend mess functions in issued uniform. Regrettably at the time the allowance was introduced it was not possible to find sufficient monies to enable it to be extended beyond Regular personnel and, given the economic climate, it is unlikely that funding will be found to extend this allowance in the near future.

IS it possible to apply for a British passport while serving in the Army as a Gurkha soldier? I understand that this is not the case if serving with a Gurkha regiment, but what if I was to transfer to a British corps or regiment? – Pte S Gurung.

Brig Mike Griffiths, DPS(A), writes: You are correct that you cannot apply for British citizenship or a British passport while serving in the Brigade of Gurkhas. If you transfer to the wider Army you will be eligible to apply so long as you meet all the Home Office criteria.

IN Brig Mike Griffiths’s reply to my letter, “No valid reason for Balkans veto”, and that
of a soldier serving in Lashkar Gah, “Campaign confusion” (December), he stated that medal policy is decided at the very highest level within the MoD.
No doubt this is the case, but there is one higher authority – Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
Should the Queen not have the final say on matters such as extending the eligibility criteria for the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal [right] to include time served in Bosnia; whether or not UK personnel should be issued with a National Defence Medal, or whether eligible veterans should be allowed to officially wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia? I am not asking for a referendum on these medal legacy issues, but it would be nice to know whether Her Majesty was actually consulted on these matters and furnished with the full facts.
Finally, the brigadier quite rightly suggests that we should all look forward [to ensure repeat service in Afghanistan is suitably recognised]. However, avoiding future anomalies and unfair medal policies should not be used as an excuse to forget the past. – A former Regular soldier.