New post-nominals for Reservists - who's going to be the first to use them? :P

[pEp]

New medal and recognition for reservists

So, who among us will be the first to use Jo Bloggs VR in their title?

[RearAdmiralScrinson]

Wait… What?

When will these people learn that this whole reservist push is a waste of time and money.
They havent even recruited a fraction of their numbers they needed. Dont get me wrong there is a need for reservists, but the numbers they are talking about is ridiculous.

This whole post nominals is a load of rubbish. Far too yankified. Its just a big “look at me”. I have done Reserve and Regular Service and am looking at Reserve again, how is someones service who sits as a reserve for 10 years be any better than mine?

Part time soldier, full time banging on about it.

[MikeJenvey]

Back date this new award then?

In line with the recommendations set out by Sir John Holmes’ 2014 independent medal review, Mr Fallon will seek agreement for the introduction of the Long Service medal. This will be issued after 15 years of service, regardless of rank, to recognise the sacrifice and commitment made by Regulars.

[anon72613902]

[quote=“RearAdmiralScrinson” post=24101]Wait… What?

When will these people learn that this whole reservist push is a waste of time and money.
They havent even recruited a fraction of their numbers they needed. Dont get me wrong there is a need for reservists, but the numbers they are talking about is ridiculous.

This whole post nominals is a load of rubbish. Far too yankified. Its just a big “look at me”. I have done Reserve and Regular Service and am looking at Reserve again, how is someones service who sits as a reserve for 10 years be any better than mine?

Part time soldier, full time banging on about it.[/quote]
IMHO, RAS, and irrespective of our personal feelings towards this, I think that the difference is because a regular has one job, completes his training and is deployed on ops.

Reserves often have full-time jobs and juggle those with a part-time military training commitment and are liable for deployment on Ops for the same length of time as a regular.

Therefore, the thinking is likely to be that the reservist actually puts in a larger commitment than a regular soldier.

[Mr_OZ]

As opposed to the RAF VR.EG VRUAS VR(T) or even VR met officers
Flt Lt Blogg VR VR(T)
Confusion will rain because some MP does not know what happens in the forces.

[anon72613902]

[quote=“the silverback” post=24105]As opposed to the RAF VR.EG VRUAS VR(T) or even VR met officers
Flt Lt Blogg VR VR(T)
Confusion will rain because some MP does not know what happens in the forces.[/quote]
That’s assuming that RAFVR(T) will be eligible for the new award. They have no call-out liability and aren’t currently eligible for the VRSM.

Even if VR(T) [I]were[/I] eligible (which I strongly doubt), the post-nominal would be along the lines of: Flt Lt J Bloggs VR RAFVR(T).

[Edited to add:] Of course, the RAFVR(T) may have some officers who also hold commissions in the RAuxAF and who [I]would[/I] be eligible for the award. Post-nominals earned in one branch can also be used in another, so we probably [I]will[/I] see some VR(T) using them.

[SVS]

[quote=“RearAdmiralScrinson” post=24101]When will these people learn that this whole reservist push is a waste of time and money.
They havent even recruited a fraction of their numbers they needed.[/quote]

Point of order. Army mongoes might not have, but the RAF Reserves exceeded their recruitment target for the year.

[tango_lima]

[quote=“Gunner” post=24106]
[Edited to add:] Of course, the RAFVR(T) may have some officers who also hold commissions in the RAuxAF and who [I]would[/I] be eligible for the award. Post-nominals earned in one branch can also be used in another, so we probably [I]will[/I] see some VR(T) using them.[/quote]

Not any more. Can be one or the other but not both.

[RearAdmiralScrinson]

I didnt find hard being a reservist. If anything it was a jolly. If anything being regular was the biggest pain in the backside.

And no wonder the RAF reserves met their quota, why dig in when you can check in, and all the techies and boffins realised they could triple their income by going reserves, as the MOD has to pay their Civvie Salary when deployed…

We all have a job to do. We all play a part. We are all smally parts of the big green machine. I know some horrendous reservists, I know some fantastic reservists. I know some fantastic regulars, I know some horrendous regulars. Just turn up, do your job and crack on. What a waste of time and money.

If you write your name with these nominals, your a first class doorknob. I might just wear my medals everyday. Or carry them around and whip them out when asked my name.

[wilf_san]

[quote=“tango_lima” post=24117][quote=“Gunner” post=24106]
[Edited to add:] Of course, the RAFVR(T) may have some officers who also hold commissions in the RAuxAF and who [I]would[/I] be eligible for the award. Post-nominals earned in one branch can also be used in another, so we probably [I]will[/I] see some VR(T) using them.[/quote]

Not any more. Can be one or the other but not both.[/quote]

Really? Please elaborate upon this unknown/new limitation.

Also, in this linked MoD press release: am I alone in finding the use of the term ‘Volunteer Reserve’ for the individual (as well as for the formations) at best just bad grammar, and at worst downright confusing? Surely the correct term for a single member of the reserves (or a reserve) is “reservist”, in the first person singular? I have heard this Americanism elsewhere, and I find it a clumsy use of language.

wilf_san

ps [quote=“the silverback”]or even VR met officers[/quote]
There are none; MMU Officers ceased to be members of the RAFVR (Civil Component) branch shortly after the General Duties branch of the RAFVR was absorbed into the RAuxAF in 1997 (leaving just the Training and UAS branches, which were then augmented by the addition of the DTUS branch). Full-time members of the MMU are considered to be mobilised members of the RAFR (ResO/ResA) rather than RAuxAF, which is still used as the preferred formation for PTVR membership…unless that final fact has now been amended IAW the ‘public facing’ RAF Reserves branding…note the plural “s” ending for the Air Force’s formation, unlike the singular Army Reserve).

pps I have an uneasy feeling about this ‘VR’ post-nominals idea. Whilst clearly intended to recognise service from long-serving members of the active reserves, it is going to cause confusion with and for CFAV members of the ACO. This belatedly (but legitimately) begs the question as to where (if anywhere) the RAFVRT sits (for branding/affiliation, not orbat) within the undenominative umbrella that is now ‘RAF Reserves’

[MattB]

[quote=“ACP20”]1. The RAF policy whereby Regular and Reserve RAF personnel are permitted to assist Air Cadet
Organisation (ACO) units with training programmes, affiliation visits, competitions, sports events and
camps is published in Reference A. These individuals are known as “Service Instructors” (SIs)
(previously “Service Helpers”). [/quote]

It would certainly seem that the intention is that RAuxAF personnel are appointed as SIs rather than becoming CFAVs, although
(1) I’m not sure if it’s actually mandatory - there doesn’t seem to be anything in the commissioning of RAFVR(T) officers section of ACP20 to specifically exclude anyone currently serving
(2) Even if it was, I’m not sure how it would apply to those already wearing two hats.

[tango_lima]

[quote=“MattB” post=24125][quote=“ACP20”]1. The RAF policy whereby Regular and Reserve RAF personnel are permitted to assist Air Cadet
Organisation (ACO) units with training programmes, affiliation visits, competitions, sports events and
camps is published in Reference A. These individuals are known as “Service Instructors” (SIs)
(previously “Service Helpers”). [/quote]

It would certainly seem that the intention is that RAuxAF personnel are appointed as SIs rather than becoming CFAVs, although
(1) I’m not sure if it’s actually mandatory - there doesn’t seem to be anything in the commissioning of RAFVR(T) officers section of ACP20 to specifically exclude anyone currently serving
(2) Even if it was, I’m not sure how it would apply to those already wearing two hats.[/quote]

Well, when it came in I was a CI and Reservist and was obliged to become an SI.

I’m pretty sure the sections of ACP20 on CIs and SNCOs state that currently serving members of the armed forces, regular or reserve, are ineligible.

[theunknown]

Just to throw this out there…

306. Service with Other Reserve Forces. Officers of the RAFVR(T) are at liberty to apply for commissions in the RAFR or RAuxAF, or any Naval or Army Reserve or Auxiliary Forces. Conversely, officers of these same Reserve or Auxiliary Forces may apply for commissions in the RAFVR(T). In the event of mobilization or national emergency necessitating partial call out of the reserve forces, liability for service in other reserve or auxiliary forces will take precedence over RAFVR(T) activities (see also para 339).