It would appear if you read the cover, JSP456 is actually concerned with catering provision, logistics and management, nothing at all to do with Officer’s or any other Mess management.
Chapter 20 of Queens Regulations (RAF) is about that, but there is another document which lays down the mechanics, especially reference to the management of what are non-public funds, which are used for charitable purposes.
You will also see that Chapter 38 Section 8/3002 relates to retention of rank and needs to be read d in conjunction with AP1919, unless there is a specific ACP on this subject.
QRs are what makes the whole thing tick and includes the Letters Patent -the Sovereign’s authority, whereas the ACO only exists under a Royal Warrant.
And NO, I have no reason to be bothered about not being eligible to be a member.
My overarching response to that, is that your status once you become ex-serving will be that of a former commissioned officer.
That residual responsibility/obligation/status applies, irrespective of whether it has been applied to someone during regular/reserve or cadet forces service. In your case, you do not revert to become an ORs veteran, once you retire as a commissioned Cadet Forces Adult Volunteer.
(Apologies, please note that I’m looking at this from as logical a perspective as possible, but in seperate parts).
On a relevant and related note: say there was an ex-regular RAF Sqn Ldr who joined the RAuxAF in their previous substantive rank, but was then (say) promoted to Wg Cdr, and eventually retired as a Gp Capt: they would normally retire as a Gp Capt RAuxAF Retd and not as a Sqn Ldr RAF Retd (I can think of real-life examples of this)
Conversely, an Air Cdre RAF who retired from regular service, and joined the remnant RAFVR(T) or RAFVR(UAS) as a ‘local substantive’ Fg Off…when they retired a ‘second time’, they would revert to Air Cdre RAF Retd (and intriguingly, despite being a Fg Off RAFVR, they would wear No5s ranked as an Air Cdre during their whole time as a Fg Off).
But…back to this thing about wearing unifom headdress with civilian clothes during certain parades (which is very-much a tradition we’ve imported from North America): I’m still puzzling over how a serving Regular, Reserve or Cadet Forces person, commissioned/enlisted or appointed, can temporarily become ex-serving. I don’t think there’s much of a modern-day disagreement with anyone that’s ex-service (in the broadest meaning of that term) wearing headdress during a remembrance or commemorative parade, as long as they are not a disgraced former serviceperson (noting that direct personal membership of an ex-service association does not appear to be a full pre-req for taking part in such parades).
My interpretation is that someone who is currently serving as member of a Regular/Reserve or Cadet Force, but is not on duty, AND is aware that there is a formal parade taking place (and they either personally wish, or have been invited, to take part) then they would do so, as an individual in uniform, marching within the body of the sequenced formations in the position appropriate to their single-service affiliation in terms of precidence, and also as a function of their rank.
Because, again- I cannot see how somebody that’s a card-carrying Uniformed Service Person (Reg/Res/CF) can temporarily become ex-service.
(And as to former Officers marching with the former Other Ranks: I think we may see the traditions on this being recreated, in society, as we watch on…perhaps this may apply, via custom and practice, only to Offrs that do not retain rank following retiral)
Note: the above are observations, not absolutes. But they are based upon a lot of experience, common-sense, and just some (informed) opinion.
Please re-read what I posted. If individual off-duty members of the Regular or Reserve Forces that are not a direct part of formations that are marching (eg during Remembrance parades), if so invited, and it is their wish, they can and do form-up in uniform as part of one of their parent single-service units, in the correct location that corresponds with command and precidence.
This is absolutely not a new thing…it has gone on forever.
What is sounding like a “new thing” to me is the concept of an off-duty current regular/reserve/cadet forces adult member marching in civilian clothes (with, or without military headgear) as if they were temporarily an ex-serviceperson. But they’re not…they’re an off-duty Reg/Res/CF member.
Put it another way…that bowler hat only goes on, for parades, once you’ve finally retired. If someone is able to give a logical contradiction to what I’ve just said, I’d be very interested to see it.
I’ve just been forwarded an email which contains the following lines:
The officer cadre on the 1st of December 2017 changed their status from RAFVR(T) to RAFAC. “WE” have not retired as VR(T) as some may believe, this at present is going through legal branch to verify if we can use the term RAFVR(T) Retd for those who have swapped VRT for CFC.
All of which seems to be the opposite of what was stated before the CFC was introduced. Is it any wonder that people are doubting the official lines released from HQAC…
The problem is that it seems all these announcements were made before consulting RAF/MOD legal advisers.
Apparently an ACF CFAV has sent in a service complaint regarding the change from land forces commission to CFC which has clearly had input from senior lawyers and is being taken seriously. The question remains whether any other service complaints are in motion and whether o r not any one takes outcome to judicial review
The question over relinquishment/retirement was asked on the CFC page about whether those who had sufficient time in could retire and then move to the new Commission rather than simply swapping one for the other and the answer was yes. (It doesn’t make a huge amount of difference except it would potentially save those of us with No5’s from having to change our Badges from VRT to the new hopping pins).
But it seems only the Army lawyers were really consulted and them not properly because policy personnel had a hard deadline of 2017 for implementation and were not prepared to move.
I’ve also heard that it’s such a mess legally that the SCC have decided to stick with their current system.
(This is what I’ve picked up from colleagues in Tri-service and MOD legal roles and may not be the whole picture).
the next problem is that MOD and RAF lawyers are cheap lawyers, because neither the RAF nor MOD can/will afford good lawyers.
the RAF/MOD legal groups will fudge something that they think will comply with the law - and HQAC, being idiots, will believe them - and then someone will go to judicial review with a lawyer that costs more that a bunch of grapes and two packets of Haribo a day and it will all fall apart over the course of a morning.
buy cheap, buy twice - and shell out huge wedges in compensation.
@HQAC - you know that thing in 2003 where the Chief of the Defence staff was so concerned about the legality of the Iraq war and the quality of the government legal advice that he commissioned his own, private, legal advice because he didn’t want to be the one left holding the (dead) baby when it all went breasts skyward? well, that would be a good operational model for you to be following…
CDS showed commendable wisdom in doing that, never ever trust a poltician to keep their word when there other poeple to throw under the nearest Clapham omnibus, that includes some people in the military past and present.
Haven’t heard anything from CCF(RN), which I would have done, so as far as I know it’s still on for them. But they’ve always been a bit of an anomaly in a CCF where the other officers were commissioned.
I was told as someone mentioned above that there is no retirements any more - only relinquish or resign (for VRT and CFC) - one reason being to stop the whole ”Retd” practice as there has been some No5 walting that got seriously undesirable attention (one was splashed over mainstream media when the individual ended up in court)
IIRC There was never any retirement before either!
You resigned your commission, and providing you met the required criteria (Been an officer for 10 years, had a good record, were not resigning due to discipline issues), then you would receive a letter thanking you for your service, and confirming that you could retain the right to use the post nominals “(highest rank you served as for at least a year) VR(T) Retd.”
RE number 5 walting - provided someone had received the letter, they would be perfectly entitled to wear number 5s as a retired VR(T), so I can’t see how that would be walting?
