Drugs put career in doubt
LAST December I was subject to Compulsory Drugs Testing (CDT) and tested positive for class C drug stanozolol [anabolic steroid].
Summoned to see my commanding officer in March, I admitted to having taken something for a period of three weeks in September 2009.
My CO took the view that he wished to retain me and wrote a statement, which was forwarded to the brigade commander, to reflect this. I am told that the commander endorsed the decision not to discharge me and that my case would be further considered by manning in Glasgow.
Since then I have heard nothing back down the chain of command. As with other disciplinary issues, is there a set time frame in which this process should be completed?
Due to the uncertainty I have started to apply for jobs on civvy street but am unable to give potential employers a start date as I have no idea what the Army is planning to do. – Name and address supplied.
Brig Mike Griffiths, DPS(A), responds: Your letter raises questions about the time taken to process CDT results and the follow-on action in the event of a positive test.
I can confirm that all action to date has been within the mandated policy time lines. All CDT samples are tested and subject to the same common screening process with further analysis of samples when something is found.
Follow-on testing for steroids can take longer than for other illegal substances, which accounts for the period between your test in December and the notification of your positive result in March 2010.
The CO has up to three months to investigate and consider a case from the date at which he or she is notified of the result. This ensures that there is appropriate time to fully investigate the details, for example consultation with external agencies such as the laboratory which tests CDT samples, to ensure that the individual involved is dealt with fairly.
On completion of the investigation, an application for retention or discharge is submitted through the chain of command to the Directorate of Manning (Army). They will consider all relevant facts and, where necessary, seek advice from Personal Services 2 (Army), the Army’s policy branch that oversees CDT, before reaching a decision. Strict criteria for retention must be satisfied. On average about 50 soldiers a year are retained following a positive result.
Herrick R&R issue up in the air
Picture: Steve Dock
IT is my understanding that anyone deployed on operations for more than four months and one day (approximately 121 days) is entitled to one period of Rest and Recuperation (R&R) lasting seven days.
My unit [664 Sqn AAC] has deployed its personnel for 139 days with no R&R and no explanation of any workaround.
Rumour has it that we will get our R&R on returning to the UK, but nothing has been confirmed. Is this allowed and if so what happens regarding allowances, as we would normally still get Longer Separation Allowance (LSA) and our battle bonus for this period?
If the extra week does not count – as we would have operationally located out of theatre – some personnel will miss out on more than £200.
This situation is not a one off. All Apache squadrons deploying on Op Herrick now deploy for more than four months with no tour break and the chain of command has not explained why and what the policy on R&R is. This affects around 150 personnel from each squadron every rotation. – Capt S Lunn, Flt Comd, 664 Sqn, Op Herrick.
Sqn Ldr L Shaylder, SO2 J1 Ops Cap/Dev, PJHQ, responds: The policy on R&R is laid down in Joint Services Publication 760, which states: “The decision to grant R&R rests with the in-theatre operational commander, who will consider a number of factors such as the threat, the operational requirement and minimum force levels, to determine the practicality of R&R.
“R&R is not leave and is to be taken at a time, location and for a duration specified by the operational commander. R&R may only be granted to individuals and units on periods of continuous operations in excess of four months.”
While personnel are on R&R they are not entitled to LSA, additionally there is no authority for either allowance referenced to continue when personnel have returned from ops to the UK.
Unfortunately we cannot comment specifically on local Joint Helicopter Command arrangements.
Strip back spending on Service uniforms
AS an ex-Regular and Territorial Army soldier and now a Cadet Force school staff instructor, I am amazed to read such dribble on the thread of uniforms, be it officers concerned that they look scruffy or warrant officers determined to maintain high dress standards.
It’s about time that these individuals were sent out into civvy street for a year’s sabbatical so that they can see what the real world is like.
People seldom go to work in suits and ties any more (only the old colonel- and brigadier-type wear bowler hats) and yet they still get on and do the job they are paid to do.
Perhaps instead of providing new uniforms, the MoD should scrap the free issue of this clothing and offer a tax allowance which would require soldiers to pay for their own attire rather than constantly wasting public money on replacement kit ahead of parades.
Uniforms should only be issued on a genuine needs basis – there needs to be more accountability on this issue.
Furthermore, why not scrap the wearing of all headdress?
Just think how much could be saved if money didn’t have to be spent on berets and badges. Come on MoD, get a grip on things. – David Morris, Rhondda.
Herrick hairdryer treatment
Shooting star: England talisman David Beckham is shown the mounted heavy machine gun on an Army Lynx helicopter by LCpl Chandler (9 AAC), who said of the former Real Madrid and AC Milan man’s visit “it’s good morale for someone like that to come here”.
WITH England fans no doubt still smarting from seeing their side crash out of this summer’s World Cup, David Beckham’s cameo in July’s issue of Soldier provoked some barbed comments from our Facebook fans.
While Allan “big up the Becks” McClure and Brenda Storey commended “Golden Balls” for visiting British Service personnel at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan ahead of football’s showpiece tournament, others were less inclined to hail the actions of the former England skipper.
Perhaps considered guilty by association, Beckham, who missed England’s dire display in South Africa through injury, was branded as being “just like all footballers, overpaid and underachieving” by Lola-Kitty Loki.
On the attack, David Egner was dismissive of Beckham’s three-day tour of theatre, stating “he’s got nowt else to do, has he?”.
He also suggested that the rest of the squad should have gone with the former Manchester United man, been given a “tin hat and gun” and made to do “summat useful for their millions”.
A sentiment shared by Mark Arnold who proposed that seeing all that soldiers do for less money a year than most footballers earn in a month would teach the players what “bravery, loyalty, comradeship and respect really is” and to “not demand it [respect] just because they kick a football around”.
Mike Ashworth said that he would have been more impressed if Becks had chosen to leave “the PR team” at home.
“Personally I think the best way for any celebrity to do this [visit British personnel on operations] would be to do so completely anonymously,” he added.
“That would give me a bit more respect for celebs.”
Defending the LA Galaxy midfielder, Raymond Hamilton said: “At least David Beckham went to see what it is like out there for himself. Good on him, I say.”
inequality of the criteria for the award of the Golden Jubilee Medal
I WRITE having read a number of letters in Soldier concerning the perceived inequality of the criteria for the award of the Golden Jubilee Medal.
While I have some sympathy for the disappointment voiced by your correspondents, at least most serving members of the UK Armed Forces were issued the decoration. It could have been worse. I missed out on all three of the commemorative medals awarded during the 36 years I have been serving.
Canada traditionally allocates only a handful of jubilee and commemorative medals to each unit and while a Canadian version of the Golden Jubilee Medal was struck, the vast majority of personnel did not receive it.
New Zealand and Australia’s Defence Forces did not receive allocations of the Golden Jubilee Medal and did not strike their own.
I can only hope we fare better this time round [Diamond Jubilee Medal]. – David Buck, Wellington, New Zealand.
|
