Document Control Policy

Afternoon all.

I’m trying to find the RAFAC policy regarding document control etc.

With the new GDPRs coming in imminently, we’re trying to audit our current records and have a lot of paperwork that either needs destroying or filing centrally.

Is there a policy somewhere outlining how long we should keep 3822As, TG21/23s etc on site and, if not, what do you do on your units?

Any help appreciated!

3822A’s are the only documents we keep on squadron. They are kept in a locked cabinet. All TG21/23’s etc are sent to Wing HQ for archiving after the event they are relating to.

As above.

TG21/22/23s all go to Wing, where HQ has a courier to pick them up and has a central stores (a hanger I would guess) for these to be stored until a Cadet reaches 25
(anyone know how long Staff forms are kept for? also 7 years after the event?)

As for F3822As - seem sensible to keep them locally for the same time but i dont know of any policy

I think 3822As are required to be held on the unit while the person is a cadet. When they l.eave I understand they can be held on unit for about 3 months then are to be sent to Wing who will retain them for around 7 years (which I believe is leaving date +7, or age18+7, whichever is later)

Trying to find a reference for all this but I suspect it is not contained in one place in a clear manner. You know, where it will be useful to volunteers. ACTO4 talks about cadet personnel records.

Nothing is to be destroyed at the moment if there is no requirement for the records to be on the unit then it is sent to wing for central archiveing. Some more information has been sent out o sharepoint announcement regarding GDPR and destorying records

My Wing policy is that all medical documents for past and present cadets are to archived via WHQ. All current 3822As are to be scanned, uploaded to bader, and then sent to WHQ for archiving.

Any other documents that we feel we need should be scanned and uploaded, then the originals destroyed.

Everything else is to be shredded/deleted.

how long are the scans held for?
although not physically held, the data is stored so still under a policy surely?

I don’t think there is one. The Limitation Act would suggest that the right period of time to keep paperwork would be until the cadet is 21. (Limitation for personal injuries to children doesn’t start to run until the child turns 18, then runs for 3 years.)

if that is the case why are we told until 25/7 years after turning 18?

Probably because someone has got confused with financial records.

How long do schools retain records for? Surely that is the lead to follow. Could see schools holding pupil records for 7 years after they’ve left?

What is the reason for holding cadet records? When I left, well became a CI, the CO gave me my blue card and consent to join, which are probably in a box somewhere for the kids to find when I shuffle off my mortal coil.

i have heard, at least with TG21s and particularly 23s is due to any future claims on injuries

Cadet A at 24yrs complains of an ankle injury which has blighted them since their Cadet days.

they try to claim compensation for the injury being aggravated by Cadeta activities - we refer to the TG23s and spot that they do not indicate any such injury has been listed to have taken appropriate measures and thus not liable for causing aggravation due to a lack of declaration of the injury

or at least that is why it was explained to me.

(exchange ankle injury for an-other injury as appropriate)

How many times have you twisted an ankle, winced, given it a rub and just got on with life? Again substitute any minor injury.

A TG form wouldn’t record the injury, only a 492 potentially.

But how many times do cadets or staff come to that put down minor injuries in the “anything to declare” boxes. The only things that go on are pre-existing conditions that might affect participation. If a cadet put down for instance “I twisted my ankle last week” and then twists it again do the twitchy sphinctered at HQAC really think that years after they’ve left someone is going to come up and make a claim.

Does anyone know how many times this has happened in the last 50 years?

don’t see my post as strictly what it is written but an example.

also i never said the Cadet got the injury while on Cadet duty, it was cause during his time as a Cadet and then aggravated on Cadet duty - TG23 could indicate he carries an injury.

the ankle injury was purposely chosen as an understood injury not a worked example. see my bracketed comment.

substitute twisted ankle for something more serious just as a broken knee, dislocated shoulder, head injury, it could include asthma or any other serious injury.
the point being Cadet A has an valid long term, potentially life changing injury in their teens, they don’t declare it on their TG23s
can could then try claim the ATC didn’t account for their injury in their early 20s and get compensation.

i doubt it has happened yet - but we all know how precious HQAC can be

A cadet at 24 would almost certainly lose their case at the first hearing, if it went that far. the RAFAC would have an almost absolute limitation defence. The claim needs to be brought before or on the 21st birthday.

(As with almost anything there are some exceptions but they are a bit narrow. Also, PI is not my , practice area, )

1 Like

TBH unless it’s exposure related or repetitive action activities in the workplace, before people were bothered about it enough to slap up a sign or give you something to wear or restrict the activity with breaks, anything more than a couple of years after the fact, would be difficult to deny. I did a spell in a warehouse with cold rooms and even with all the gear on, we were only allowed in there for about 20 minutes at any one time.

The only thing I can recall ATC wise was being told when I did my WO course was to stop cadets doing the exaggerated stamp when coming to attention, standing at ease or coming to a halt, as it had the potential to lead to injuries later in life. I’d stopped cadets doing it before then, as it irritated me and used to mean they did a ‘nodding donkey well’ action. Really bloody annoying.

completely agree

I have shared what a WSO told me when it came up in conversation but i have to question what example could someone give which could be followed through.

Anything serious enough to come back on the RAFAC would be well known and documented I would have thought by the Staff - i struggle to find anything which would fit the bill but as i say that was the reason i was given as seems as believable as any I have heard!

The Army has recently issued a very detailed GDPR guidance document for all its cadets which is still, technically, in draft as DP 2018 hasn’t received royal assent yet. But it does cover quite a lot of ground. It’s not protectively marked so I think I’m OK to quote it here.

The data retention policy is interesting:

  1. Personal data will only be held for a long as there is a need to retain it. Once we no
    longer have a need to retain or process the data, it will be deleted in a secure manner.
    However, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) requires us to
    retain all data until this has concluded (see para 14). This data is held securely.
  2. DIN 2018DIN05-0105 requires the preservation and retention of documents relating
    to children and young people, there is no current end date on this preservation order.

If you have a DG login it’s at

I can’t quote the DIN as it is marked Official but it doesn’t restrict its provisions to the Army’s cadets.

That’s the same info we’ve received