[quote]Perry Mason wrote:
Although BTI and Wilf may have a more technical answer to this point…
You are correct though, I think the grievance/service complaints procedure is likely to feature heavily in the review.[/quote]
Yes and yes
[quote]MattB wrote:
Has anyone got any idea what the problem is that changing the status of the commission is actually supposed to solve?[/quote]
The “problem” is that VR(T) and TA List B (ACF) Officers currently have a legal right of redress under the Service Complaints procedure - as commissioned officers - past the Service Board (i.e. the Air Force Board of the Defence Council) and ultimately, in certain circumstances, to HMTQ. As - so we are told - many more VR(T) and TA(B) Officers redress their complaints past Service Board level than their regular counterparts (partly perhaps due to the workplace ethos of HR/appeals procedure as opposed to the military ethos of accepting the decision of the chain of command?) …this is “inapproprate due to the volunteer nature of our appointment/role” (according to DYER) and is causing an admin headache for HQs - detracting from their core business.
Personally speaking - having read the DYER Final Report in detail - my view is that the author(s) are firmly of the opinion that Cadet Forces officers should not hold the Queens Commission, that it should be removed and a “cadet commission” introduced; similar to SCC Officers, who are neither commissioned nor legally part of the Reserve Forces (DYER also strongly suggests that the ACO and ACF should become more like the SCC, and less directly connected to their parent services). However, this is not necessarily the MOD or single Service (i.e. Army & RAF) view. A report does not automatically reflect MOD or tri-service policy, however it may shape and influence it.
In respect of the ATC (note, not the ACO(!)) however, removing the Queens Commission is a none starter, since the ATC Royal Warrant specifies (a) that officers are to be commissioned, and (b) that they are to be commissioned into the RAFVR(T):
[quote]1990 ATC Royal Warrant wrote:
ROYAL WARRANT
WHEREAS His late Majesty King George the Sixth by Warrant dated 5 February 1941, as revised and amended by Warrants dated 30 September 1944, 12 November 1946, 23 June 1947 and 9 August 1968, was pleased to make provision for the establishment and organisation of a corps to be entitled the Air Training Corps and other matters and things relating thereto.
AND WHEREAS We deem it expedient to make further provision regarding the Air Training Corps.
OUR WILL AND PLEASURE is that notwithstanding anything contained in the Warrant dated 5 February 1941, as subsequently amended, [color=#ff0000]the Regulations in the Schedule to this Our Warrant shall be regulations governing the Air Training Corps and shall be the sole and standing authority on the matters whereof they treat.[/color] Given at our Court at St James’s this nineteenth day of February 1990, in the thirty-ninth year of Our Reign.
(Signed By Her Majesty’s Command and the Secretary of State for Defence, The Rt Hon Tom King)
SCHEDULE
REGULATIONS
-
Commissioning of Officers. [color=#ff0000]Officers appointed to the Corps shall hold commissions as officers in the Training Branch of Our Air Force Volunteer Reserve and shall be governed by the regulations prescribed for that Reserve, in so far as the same are applicable to them and subject to such modification as Our Defence Council may direct.[/color][/quote]
Commissioned RAFVR(T) Officers are woven into the fabric of the ATC by the Royal Warrant. Endex.
[quote]Op Nimrod wrote:
I heard that the VR(T) will be staying and SNCOs will be joining us, but the RFA will be updated to remove some privileges that some idiots have been abusing (service appeals) [/quote]
Nail, hammer, head - except it won’t be RFA96 that will be updated - my money is on Cadet Forces Officers (personnel?) being excluded from making Service Complaints by order of the Secretary of State for Defence - under the authority of Section 334(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/334
Cheers
BTI