Perhaps because in the eyes of the MoD, over 18-year-old cadets are the same status as WOs and SNCOs; ie uniformed civilians. If WOs and SNCOs are eligible on the grounds of ‘uniformed service in an MoD-sponsored cadet force’, over 18-year-old cadets should be too.
Whether CIs should get CFMs is another argument, which has already been discussed here; for what it’s worth, I think they should.[/quote]
Interesting thought.
Since Staff Cadets still pay subs… can they be considered to be ‘serving’?
To clarify: cadets are the ‘service users’ or the ones being served by the organisation, and (generally their parents) pay for that with direct subscriptions and taxes… it’s the staff who are providing said service and serving…
(I think my general thoughts on Staff Cadets and on whether CIs should get CFMs have been recorded in detail elsewhere)
And an interesting comment back TL! I have absolutely no idea why staff cadets qualify - has it always been so? I guess that it all hinges on the definition of ‘service’ and you can bet that the MoD would have employed its legal staff to ensure that it covered the angles.
Whether there is a link I know not, but I do know through personal experience that as far as the MoD was concerned, ‘service’ in terms of qualifying for pensions (and LS&GCMs too I believe - stands ready to be corrected), didn’t start until age 21 and that was changed only in the last 15 - 20 years I think.
Why does time as a Staff Cadet count, but not as a CI?[/quote]
to answer the above question:
“uniformed service”
i am not meaning to place an argument against CIs but:
a O18 Cadet should/would/could only stay on the books if they remained “active” ie…they had to attend or get kicked out
a CI on the other hand can turn up one night a month and still be considered "active"
the difference in “service” is clear between the two.
or at least that is what came to mind when i read the question. a O18 Cadet has more “commitment expectation” upon them than there is up a CI
disclaimer: yes i know 75%+ of CIs attend regularly and many more so than uniformed staff, but the fact remains there is no “expectation of commitment” or reasonable measure for CIs to aid qualification of adequate service other than being “on the books” for long enough
[quote=“steve679” post=22875]…a CI on the other hand can turn up one night a month and still be considered "active"
the difference in “service” is clear between the two…[/quote]
sorry, turning up isn’t the key - providing the service is the key.
the bloke who owns the farm shop might not be there every day like the yummy mummy in her chelsea tractor, but only one of them is a farmer. consumption of cabbage does not make you a farmer, its growing cabbage that makes you a farmer.
in the real world you could easily argue that the O18 staff cadet who’s BEL goes on the AT forms, who consistantly does the advance/rear parties at camps, who drives cadets to things, who runs the stores etc… should have his service to the ACO recognised (i can think of more than several O18 cadets who were very significant wheels on the Sqn machine), but the idea that their service is, by definition, more valuable than that of CI’s is just offensive.
you are the regional commandant who looks at CI’s who don’t want to go into uniform [color=#ff4400][DISAPPROVINGLY][/color], and i claim my £5.
Staff cadet service is counted to bring parity to the other cadet forces.
In the ACF or SCC upon reaching 18 cadet service ends and staff service may begin. Those young ‘probationary’ staff members going into uniform at 18 would then have a two year ‘advantage’ over ATC cadets (who are also considered to be ‘probationary staff’ - and remember, they should only be staying beyond 18 if they are bringing value and service to the Corps).
By including cadet service from 18 in any of the cadet forces we level the playing field and make the eligibility requirements equal.
As has been pointed out, in the 2006 edition they removed the requirement for continuity of service.
This was quickly fixed because it was not in accordance with the Queen’s instructions for the CFM. They didn’t have the authority to make that decision.
At the time this fix was promulgated in routine orders.
Subsequent publications of JSP 814 have fixed the requirements. The correct and current version is available on Bader Sharepoint.
Service as a CI is not counted because the medal requires 12 years of Uniformed Service. Right or wrong, any change to that would have to come from Aunty Liz.
At least the step forward was to allow one to aggregate service before and after CI.
Up until 2004 it was basically saying:
“Being a cadet is fine. Going straight to uniform? Great, carry on counting.”
“Wait!? Becoming a CI? That isn’t giving a good enough service. It’s no better than if you’re weren’t in the Corps at all!
You lose everything you built up before!”
Unfortunately it seems that the medal office at HQAC aren’t aware that any of this has happened and are working on a pre 2004 idea that you’re not allowed a single break.
I’m 15 months over due and they still keep bouncing the application back saying “Oh… No, you did a few months as a CI. It’s not allowed…” :ohmy:
God forbid we should expect people to know their own jobs…
What is a mystery is that CWC members can get recognition for every 12 years service and CIs who even if they only do their thing, get nothng to recognise their service.
The medal is the Cadet Forces Medal, the cadet forces are staffed by unpaid (ignore PTD as pay) volunteers, CIs are as much a part of that staffing as any member of that staff and yet are complelely under / devalued by the system and have been for donkey’s. I think we need to lose the hang up about being in a uniform as a pre-requisite for official reconition for staff, afterall we have one cadre that never wears a uniform, many of whom are a damn sight more involved than some uniformed staff.
Maybe the CFM should only start ticking from the end of being a cadet and recognises any adult service.
I’ve never understood why being a cadet over 18 contributed to it and in my era cadet service went to your 22nd birthday.
As for over 18s transporting cadets, has the thorny issue around business cover for car insurance being broached?
I’m even more confused now as I know of friends in the army cadets who got their CFM recently using aggregated army (not reserve service). I think the medal office are making it up as they go along :evil:
Can you clarify which JSP 814 ie date that the powers that be are using?
Who knows what HQAC are using, and remember that it’s them and not the MoD Medals Office as they have delegated authority for deciding on eligibility for the CFM. As WDI has mentioned, there appears to be no logic behind some of the decisions they make regarding qualifications for the medal.
The version on Sharepoint is the current one, 31 Mar 11. Assuming you have BADER access, look here
you’d hope that HQAC would have twigged by now and asked Brenda if she could amend the requirements to encompass ‘service in the cadet forces’ - its not difficult, Buck house has a phone number, there are channels for such things, this is not beyond the wit of man…
its perfectly acceptable for MOD/FCO CS to recieve either the OSM or the Civilian Service Medal for duties in Afghanistan, it seems rather inexplicable therefore for HQAC to think that CI’s should not however be eligable for awards given to uniformed staff for doing a job far closer to the uniformed job than is the case (broadly) in Afghanistan.
HQAC is part of senior echelons of the RAF, it has freinds in very high places, as well as being towards the top of the official foodchain in the writing of these regulations - if it wanted to change a situation that works against half its people for no reason whatsoever it could easil do so - that it has not is evidence of only one thing: that it it either hasn’t noticed the problem because there aren’t an CI’s at HQAC, or because it doesn’t have a problem with it…
i genuinely see the disparity as being as unfair as deciding that people with a three in their service number are ineligable for operational awards. utterly, utterly cretinous behaviour.
Out of morbid curiosity. I served X amount of years in the regulars, I become a CI then go into uniform, when does the clock restart on the time for the CFM? Does my previous service get disregarded after a set time?
(edit: I think I answered my own question by reading the thread however some calirty would be nice
And technically could you apply for it if your combined cadet service and regular service reached the requirments whilst still being a CI without ever getting into uniform again? For example 2 years as a Cadet, 10 years as a regular?)
You can only carry over a maximum of 3 years regular or reserve service and you can only have a break of 3 years between leaving the regulars\reserves and going into uniform with the CF.
I carried over 2 years and a small number of days and had my application rejected. I re-submitted stating that the regulations had been incorrectly applied and they relented. The medal finally came through in September.
Angus is right though - the whole eligibility criteria needs reviewing. If CI’s are civvies, then what of non-commissioned staff? They are effectively civilians in uniform as they are not members of a Reserve Air Force of the Crown. They still get the CFM but CI’s don’t.
Completely unfair IMO and this is maybe something that needs raising with HQAC?
In respect of non-commissioned staff, and the CFM…The original 1950 Royal Warrant authorising the medal has interesting detail on who the medal was intended for:
An intriguing omission is that it doesn’t appear to have included ACF non-commissioned adults (which, of course, like our ASNCOs, are considered to be civilians in uniform).
I’ve never been able to confirm whether SNCO Adult Instructors in the ACF/CCF are a ‘recent’ innovation (if I were to make an informed guess, I’d predict that perhaps they were introduced as late as the early '70s, happy to be corrected on whether the ACF/CCF actually had a LaSER-style SNCO introduction date in that sort of era…nobody seems to be clear on this).
The Eligibility Criteria perhaps gives the impression of having been intended to be mainly an award for Commissioned /Warrant Officers serving with the CFs. Note the odd detail for naval ranks/rates (it doesn’t state [i]Chief Petty Officer and the Army equivalent thereof [/I], which would’ve covered Sergeants), yet it does name-check Adult Warrant Officers, very much an ATC-specific rank title.
I can’t see how this would’ve covered ACF/CCF ASNCOs…(or RSMIs/SMIs/RQMIs ie their WO1/2/3) but if it did somehow use the part that says [i]‘and persons given appointments by Our Defence Council’[/I]…how on earth would that not include Civilian Instructors?
Does anyone have the actual later intermediate versions of the Royal Warrant?
wilf_san
(EDIT…I’ve just re-read that initial ‘’[i]and persons given appointments by Our Defence Council[/I]" opening statement:
[quote][i]in our Reserve or Auxiliary or Volunteer Forces , and persons given appointments by Our Defence Council in these Forces[/I], [/quote]…what exactly is meant by a ‘Volunteer Force’, in this context? As distinct from a Volunteer Reserve Force, which it is deliberately setting a distinction from? If this indeed is the route via which non-warranted/non-commissioned Adult Instructors of the ACF/CCF/VCC were originally awarded the CFM (assuming that they did actually exist in the 1950s) again I can’t see how an appointed Civilian Instructor wouldn’t also have been eligible…at that time)
It does, as “adult warrant officers of services cadets”. In 1950, non commissioned adults were appointed as adult warrant officers.
In 1957, the title of “adult warrant officer” was changed to Sergeant Major Instructor (SMI) and the appointment of Sergeant Instructor (SI) was introduced. Hope this helps!
Right, so contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t just the ATC that had AWOs? Amazing. The other strange outcome from what you’re saying is that up until 1957, only the Sea Cadets saw fit to appoint non-warranted Adult SNCOs. And, of course, there is the eternal mystery as to why the ATC took another half century before appointing ASNCOs.
[quote=“talon”]SSI and RSMI were introduced around 1970.[/quote]Aha, so I was nearly close with my guesses!!
A couple more questions, talon, if you don’t mind. Do the following people get the CFM:
That is incorrect. They receive a recognition of service award at 10/15/20 years (i think that’s the gap, but roughly something like that).[/quote]
Since when?
I’m sure if this existed it would have been mentioned, even if it’s new in this day of no ammendment notifications, it would have been heralded.
I know and have known CIs who have been around for the periods suggested and never seen or heard of any of these awards.
There is a fly in the ointment with the notion of CIs being eligible for the CFM, in that CI is recognised as an actual legitimised state within the ACO staffiing and not an underclass of staff or just a “holding rank” before being allowed to go into uniform.
The former is an opinion held by many CIs given the way they are treated by the CoC and in what they can / can’t do.
The latter given that WSOs constantly ask CIs are you going into uniform and get all snotty if they say no, almost seems to be the mindset many uniformed staff have.
Maybe it is about time that ALL adult staff service is recognised for the CFM and it becomes an award for adult staff service in the ACO, regardless of being in uniform or not.
Please see below the award for long serving CIs & Chaplins, just requires someone to complete the paperwork… Although this really should become an alert on the Dashboard in SMS for OC/Adj
[quote=“wilf_san” post=22908]A couple more questions, talon, if you don’t mind. Do the following people get the CFM:
RFCA CAAs (or indeed any other RFCA staff)? - CCF non-commissioned school-appointed SSIs?
ACFA staff?[/quote]
Our School SSI is an ex-regular WO1. He’s been awarded both Jubilee Medals since he’s been at the school so one may assume that SSI’s are also eligible for the CFM.