Effect of Joining the T.A

Growler · 28 August 2014 06:07

Hi all just recently Joined although have been following these pages on and off for a little while. So pleased to meet you formally as it where. Soory if this question has been brought up before and if so please feel free to repost in the appropriate threads.

For a little while nowand after discussions with certain recruiting parties I have been contemplating Joining up with the T.A or RAF Reserve, I am ex RAF having been out of the RAF for 7 years and I feel perhaps I may still have something left to offer… however I realy enjoy my time within the ACO and my current commitments.

Is anyone able to give me the current ruling on whether as a Reserve I will be able to keep my SNCO(ATC) appointment or would I have to relinquish this and become a Service helper. Idid once know of a Cpl Resrvist who said he held appointment FSgt(ATC).

angus · 28 August 2014 06:41

doubtless someone will give you the legal view - i think you can, but only with the consent of both the reserve formation and the ATC - but from a ‘is it physically possible?’ standpoint i’d suggest that doing both roles well, holding down a job and having any kind of social or family relationship is going to be incredibly difficult, and probably impossible in the medium term.

the TA unit who provided the bulk of the blokes who were on my last tour did two nights a week (one trg, one phys) one whole weekend a month and one weekend day a month, a two week (15 days i believe it is now…) camp somewhere between Easter and October, and blokes were always going off on other unit exercises - in addition, they did at least an hour of their own phys every day. i don’t see, unless you don’t have to work, and your ATC OC doesn’t mind what you do or don’t turn up to, and you never want to speak to anyone not in uniform ever again, how you could fit doing an effective job as an SCNO (ATC) as well…

the much heralded changeover from SNCO (ATC) to SNCO (VRT) might have an impact on the currentl legality of such a position, because you’d effectly be a reservist in two different formations…

incubus · 28 August 2014 07:42

ACP20, Personnel Instruction 305 (RESIGNATION, RELINQUISHMENT AND TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT BY WARRANT OFFICERS AND SNCOS (ATC)) says at para 3:

“A WO/SNCO (ATC) who takes up an appointment with either the Regular or Reserve Forces will be required to resign their CFAV appointment with the ACO. However, they may remain in the Corps as a Service Instructor under the terms and conditions of PI 601 (Appointment of Service Instructors).”

MattB · 28 August 2014 07:57

Also, minor point but the TA no longer exists - might lose you a few brownie points in an interview!

It’s the Army Reserve now.

Growler · 28 August 2014 15:31

[quote=“incubus” post=20498]ACP20, Personnel Instruction 305 (RESIGNATION, RELINQUISHMENT AND TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT BY WARRANT OFFICERS AND SNCOS (ATC)) says at para 3:

“A WO/SNCO (ATC) who takes up an appointment with either the Regular or Reserve Forces will be required to resign their CFAV appointment with the ACO. However, they may remain in the Corps as a Service Instructor under the terms and conditions of PI 601 (Appointment of Service Instructors).”[/quote]

So in effect I would have to reliquinsh my current rank and get used to being addressed as “Staff” due to re- enlisting as either an Aircraftsman or a Private…and be answerable to my Own Commanding Officer through my Current Cadet Sqn Commander.

GOM · 30 August 2014 13:09

[quote=“incubus” post=20498]ACP20, Personnel Instruction 305 (RESIGNATION, RELINQUISHMENT AND TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT BY WARRANT OFFICERS AND SNCOS (ATC)) says at para 3:

“A WO/SNCO (ATC) who takes up an appointment with either the Regular or Reserve Forces will be required to resign their CFAV appointment with the ACO. However, they may remain in the Corps as a Service Instructor under the terms and conditions of PI 601 (Appointment of Service Instructors).”[/quote]

Has that recently changed? Or is it a rule that’s just been casually ignored for years? We used to have a number of of people serving both as SNCOs(ATC) and as RAuxAF or TA or RNXS. Even our Wg WO was both a WO(ATC) and an LAC RAuxAF!

The last missive I saw on the subject was that it was allowed, but that they could only wear one hat at a time - e.g. an SNCO(ATC) could not expect to use their ATC privileges to stay in the Sgts’ Mess when on RAuxAF duty as an SAC (obviously).

GOM · 30 August 2014 13:13

[quote=“Growler” post=20517][quote=“incubus” post=20498]ACP20, Personnel Instruction 305 (RESIGNATION, RELINQUISHMENT AND TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT BY WARRANT OFFICERS AND SNCOS (ATC)) says at para 3:

“A WO/SNCO (ATC) who takes up an appointment with either the Regular or Reserve Forces will be required to resign their CFAV appointment with the ACO. However, they may remain in the Corps as a Service Instructor under the terms and conditions of PI 601 (Appointment of Service Instructors).”[/quote]

So in effect I would have to reliquinsh my current rank and get used to being addressed as “Staff” due to re- enlisting as either an Aircraftsman or a Private…and be answerable to my Own Commanding Officer through my Current Cadet Sqn Commander.[/quote]

Some other issues that I’ve encountered in the past with SIs are that you would also have to relinquish any RCO or DI qualifications held (only Cpls and above may be RCOs or DIs).

GOM · 30 August 2014 13:34

Just had a thought:

Is this simply a case of ACP20 not keeping up with modern terminology?

‘An appointment to the Army Reserve’ would until this year have meant a full-time post in the ‘old’ Army Reserve, not a part-time TA post, who were ‘Volunteer Reserves’, not ‘Reserves’.

It would therefore be effectively the same as a Regular Army post and that’s not the same thing as the TA or modern ‘Army Reserve’.

mike_whiskey · 1 September 2014 09:38

Its a relatively recent change, you could once ‘have two hats’ and wear the one appropriate to what you were doing, but the rule has been changed.

I’m not sure why, though my guess would be to avoid the 'Cadet Instructor Killed in Afghan/Iraq (other warxones are or will be available) type headline, that could arise.

MW

papa_november · 1 September 2014 17:39

MW - if you think back to 5 years ago this Nov, we’ve already had a cadet instructor killed in Afghanistan. I’m pretty sure that the ATC was mentioned in some of the coverage at the time.

romeo_bravo · 1 September 2014 20:57

You are right Papa November, but is it really that long along.

wilf_san · 1 September 2014 21:13

[quote=“GOM” post=20575]
‘An appointment to the Army Reserve’ would until this year have meant a full-time post in the ‘old’ Army Reserve, not a part-time TA post, who were ‘Volunteer Reserves’, not ‘Reserves’.

It would therefore be effectively the same as a Regular Army post and that’s not the same thing as the TA or modern ‘Army Reserve’.[/quote]
Yes, but within the ACO, the overall intention is clearly to make sure that members of the active volunteer reserves of the UK’s Armed Forces can only assist/exist within the Cadet Forces as Service Instructors.

And the Army Reserve: in it’s new modern-day UK meaning (http://www.army.mod.uk/reserve/31781.aspx refers)

[quote][i]This section explains the role of the Army Reserve (formerly known as the Territorial Army) and how it fits within the greater British Army organisation…
The Army Reserve is the largest of the Reserve Forces, the others being the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR), the Royal Marines Reserve (RMR) and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reseve (RAFVR). /i[/quote]

The RAFVR is NOT an active (ie deployable) volunteer reserve force, and no elements of it have been so since 1997.

So, despite MOD(Army) having previously fixed this error on their website, back at one point when they were still ‘Territorial Army’, it’s now reverted back to being incorrect three times over.

The modern-day public name of the active (deployable) reserves of the Air Forces of the Crown is now RAF Reserves
The active (deployable) volunteer reserve element within that is the RAuxAF (Royal Auxiliary Air Force), not the RAFVR
The word ‘reserve’ is spelt incorrectly within the RAFVR abbreviation decode

How can this be so wrong, so often, and so soon after a major MOD reserves re-branding campaign? :mad:

wilf_san

ps am I alone in thinking that MOD(Army) may also have got itself confused, in that surely if there is now a single ‘Army Reserve’, whilst consisting mainly of former members of the TA, surely demobilised members of the RARO, Regular Army Reserve and FTRS Army personnel must also be members of that ‘Army Reserve’…

GOM · 1 September 2014 21:19

But has it actually changed? It was always the case that uniformed CFAVs had to relinquish their appointment if they took up full-time duties with the Regular or Reserve Forces, but this did not include Volunteer Reserves such as TA or RAuxAF.

It strikes me that PI 305 is simply reflecting the old terminology and has not been ammended to reflect the new reality of the old Volunteer Reserve Forces now being called simply ‘Reserves’.

I’m at a complete loss as to why CFAVs should not be allowed to wear ‘two hats’ as they have done for decades.

Why would it be negative press if it were to be revealed that a killed soldier was also a CFAV? Is it negative press for their employer when they’re revealed to have been a postman or bus driver or lollipop lady or railwayman or shopkeeper…? I’m not sure that I understand the logic.

If it really has changed, that’s a pretty major change to conditions of appointment that’s been slipped under the radar. I personally know current CFAVs (not in my wing) serving with the RAuxAF and the ‘Army Reserves’ formerly known as the TA and they are completely oblivious of this change. What’s more, their OCs are totally supportive of them being uniformed, non-SI CFAVs!

Two very good reasons that they have no desire to become SIs are a. Pay and allowances and b. Having to give up their RCO quals.

mike_whiskey · 2 September 2014 09:25

We have indeed already lost one of ours. However he was not a uniformed member of staff, which probably helped the distinction between his two roles

papa_november · 2 September 2014 17:01

It really is that long, it was 15 Nov 09.

Growler · 3 September 2014 14:01

Well thanks for your replies so far people however I am still a little :? ,was hoping that there may have been someone on here wih a definative answer.

I will be popping down to the TA (sorry Army Reserve) Uni in question for an open evening shortly and will have to see if they can give me an answer.

Cheeers

Shadow · 3 September 2014 14:22

Incubus has provided the definitive answer, you would have to leave the ACO in a SNCO capacity and if you still wished to assist then you would become a SI.

talon · 3 September 2014 15:50

[quote=“Growler” post=20693]Well thanks for your replies so far people however I am still a little :? ,was hoping that there may have been someone on here wih a definative answer.

I will be popping down to the TA (sorry Army Reserve) Uni in question for an open evening shortly and will have to see if they can give me an answer.
[/quote]

I doubt the AR will have an answer as this is most probably an ACO issue. JSP 814 allows members of the reserve forces to be CFAVs. The only caveat is that WOs, NCOs and other ranks serving in the reserve forces cannot hold a commission in the cadet forces.