The problem with a Commendation, at any level is that no post nominals come with it or a fancy medal to wear in 1s.
For some it’s sufficient and nice recognition as a Pat on the back that someone has nominated you and that nomination was good enough to be selected.
For others they want something that shows they have been recognised and others can see how “great” they must be.
Equally you listen to some commendations for Comdt level and it’s just that this person has been doing it for 20 year, which is great but that to me is what the CFM is for.
We need to do better at recognising those that go above and beyond the expectations of their primary post and make a difference.
Could be that an OC has built a failing sqn to a very successful one over 10 years, rather than just keeping the lights on, or someone putting a lot of work in to redefine how we deliver some types of training or making it more accessible etc.
I didn’t say they were worthless, just that they are not considered to be the next step down from State Awards. Looking at the Honours Lists which the RAF publish, next down are CAS Commendations. And you don’t have to accept any Honour, Award or medal if you don’t want it or don’t think you deserve it.
This is the nature of volunteers and I don’t know of anywhere other than Air Cadets where people get a bug up their backsides. The situation you suggest is one managing the situation. But if whatever it is running fine, then not a problem. It’s like work … if things are OK time for a break, if not crack on.
I’ve known in all aspects where I volunteer you wish that some others would do more, BUT they do what they can when they can and you accept this. We lost some good people in one of our churches when one of the Churchwardens got on their high horse and insisted they did more. They came to church but did mothing more.
Having worked with & in several volunteer organisations (military & civilian) it’s all of them.
Similar headaches and issues & techniques needed to resolve which is why volunteer management is developing into its own industry.
& similar to work this is where the issue is. Different volunteers work in different ways often not appreciating that others do things differently.
Because it’s volunteering everyone has a different vision & philosophy on what needs doing & there is always something to do. Volunteers don’t like change & when a change needs to occur it’s often difficult to make it happen. Yes you may have lost good people, but you may not have lost good (effective) volunteers.
It’s a shame but it’s the nature of life & along those lines shouldn’t the volunteer who gives 30 hours a week trying to help everything run get a bit more recognition than the volunteer you comes in once a week to do a single hour helping on one specific task?
In a transactional universe more effort/energy should get more recognition.
Met up with a mate from another Wg today and we were chatting about the QPJM (as you do). They mentioned that their permanent staff collated a list based on SMS attendance over the past 8 years. When they asked why only 8 years because the rules allow aggregation over any period, they were told ‘no, you’ve got to have 5 years over the past 8’. They’re ex RAF, with over 15 years Regular service and several years RAFAC, but not enough to get over a seemingly ‘automatic qualification’ gate.
It seems as though some Wgs are doing this immediate ‘automatic qualification’ list based on SMS, which makes sense. But it also seems as though some might be making up their own rules as well - quelle surprise! Let’s hope they don’t try to stick to the 8 years for aggregation when those who don’t automatically qualify are allowed to apply.
My understanding from my wing and talking to friends in various wings in various regions is that in tranche 1 it is only RAFAC service that is being counted and then only it is 5 years over the last 8 for as that is as far back as the spreadsheet provided by HQ RAFAC allowed them to go to allow tranche one to be processed in the time required but that in tranche 2 ie manual applications you can go as far back as evidence can be provided using any type of eligibility group and that was always the intention. Now that doesn’t mean some wings aren’t going to make up their own rules.
There you go, ATC have one set of rules, CCF another. Surely, if someone has evidence that they met the requirements, even through aggregation, then they should be in what seems to be known as Tranche 1. Why delay?
CCF using Westminster rather than Bader for attendance probably means the Bader data is screwy & needs a different admin process - certainly for the time period being reviewed.
The criteria is probably applied in a similar way just adapted for different admin.
Also are CCF all going through Army or is each service doing the paperwork separately as I imagine each service has different admin processes.
We’re going through the separate sections HQ rather than just Army.
The RAF section had a spreadsheet come through with name, rank, number, school, dob, date of commission and a box for comments on additional previous service. TEST staff had gone through and Red, Amber, Green colour coded each person for No, maybe and Yes. They seem to have been quite strict though.
Contingent commander was asked to double check they agreed and then sign off which of their staff had met the criteria. If the contingent commander was RAF then they self certified. I think the Army section though asked for significantly more detail of attendances per year.
Our Contingent Commander refused to sign off two staff on minimum days. One agreed, the other became a massive PITA about it but nothing changed. Though I have a feeling he’s planning to apply himself when the CC changes.
