As I’m sure we all know, a review of CFAV TCoS is under way. One point for consideration, is should officers continue to receive a Queens Commission in the VR(T).
My question for the boards is, if officers received an alternative commission (i.e. not a queens commission), how would the officers react?
Would you tell them to stuff it?
Would you carry on as “its just a piece of paper anyway”.
Would you have a different reaction?
Somewhere in between - I’d be a bit ANNOYED at our being stripped of ‘proper’ commissions for no apparent reason, and I don’t think it’d be great for morale.
I’d carry on as before though.
I already have a commission so it won’t affect me? Surely they can’t remove those currently commissioned and give them a new commission?
back when I became an officer I didn’t do it for the commission or the piece of paper, it was a nice thing to receive though! I did it because I wanted to run my own unit, because I wanted to direct a Squadron in my own way and by doing so, offer more opportunities to the cadets.
I’m proud to wear the RAF uniform when I’m on duty but I view myself as a “volunteer manager” who is responsible for a number of other volunteers who are all delivering activities and providing opportunities to the young people (cadets) in our organisation.
I read somewhere (and I can’t find the reference) that the ACO has a disproportionately high number of service complaints vs the Regular RAF. I’m pretty convinced that the review will look at that as a priority, thus freeing up resource at HQAC for other work.
I think one of the main areas they need to look at is the PTDs, these need to be “ring-fenced” because without them a significant number of uniformed volunteers would have to reduce the amount of commitment they give to the ACO.
So in a nutshell, we have to make some changes to the TCoS for the volunteers and to make them common across all the MOD Sponsored Cadet Forces but without affecting the cadet experience.
Interesting point Leeroy, but consider this - we’re all on 5 year renewals, should (and its a very big should) the commission change, my suspicion is that it would be change at the next renewal time.
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=“Perry Mason” post=8161]Interesting point Leeroy, but consider this - we’re all on 5 year renewals, should (and its a very big should) the commission change, my suspicion is that it would be change at the next renewal time.
Although BTI and Wilf may have a more technical answer to this point…[/quote]
Either way you could end up with a situation where half of your cadre of officers is commissioned into the RAFVR(T) and half of them are “appointed” into the ATC.
So imagine this you’ve got an ATC “appointed” officer and an RAFVR(T) “Commissioned” Officer on the same activity with the ATC Officer taking the lead as Camp Commandant. A serious incident happens with a cadet, the RAFVR(T) Officer can be dealt with via the Service whereas the ATC Officer walks away (even though they were in charge). I think there is lots of work to be done on that side of things before any wholesale changes can happen in the organisation.
Agreed, needs simplyfing and it needs to stop people making complaints to HQAC (and higher) that could be dealt with at Sqn/Wing/Region.
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)
Could they not require VR(T) officers to resign their commissions and be awarded the new cadet commission effective immediately thereafter?
I don’t see an inherent problem with having a transitional period where 2 flavours of commission are held by various individuals in the organisation.
I know SNCOs going VR(T) is under consideration also - long overdue if you ask me!
I do agree though, that the redress/complaints procedure should be more closely tailored to the ACO and not the RAF… but I do like the notion of complaining to the Queen… 
Perry - are you involved with the working group then?
For me, I know I didn’t join for the commission but removing it from me would make me seriously consider my position as an officer. There are very few tangible benefits to being an OC that I’ve found so far, and that scroll I have at home is one of them.
Even if technically it wouldn’t change my role, it would still feel like an insult personally.
Seems a sensible approach and by having the uniformed cadre under one roof (either VR(T) or ATC) they can both be dealt with in the same manner for administrative action therefore making the Civil Servant’s life easier
I’m immensely proud of my commission, that’s for certain - but does it change what I do? In some ways, for me, I think it does. It’s a firm link into the RAF which means I am bound to uphold a set of values as an officer. I take that quite seriously and I just don’t feel that an ATC commission would have the same effect. I’d probably continue as I am more out of habit than anything, but I’m not sure that all the good work that’s gone into improving the selection of VR(T) wouldn’t be undone by a change to an ATC commission.
Whatever the letters are after my name, I don’t think it would fundamentally change how I delivered activities to cadets on a practical level. What it would most likely be is a hit on my personal morale and this might lead to me dedicating less time to my unit and the organisation as a whole. I read my scroll realtively often as it hangs on my wall and it reminds me of just how much responsibility and trust is delegated to you as a holder of the Queen’s Commission. That is not something that should be removed lightly.
And, as I discussed with the Regional Commandant and Brigadier Plastow when they came to visit for his DYER report, it is a real commission. When used correctly, it can be an aid to gaining cadets experiences and qualifications, which an ATC one wouldn’t afford.
I wonder how many people use the fact they are technically a reservist to their advantage at work? I know some places will give VR(T) reserve forces leave, but not SNCOs. This could impact on how many people are able to commit time to activities if it is removed.
An interesting thought and one I’d not previously considered! Would “Cadet Force Commissioned” Officers be afforded the extra “reserve forces leave” that so many local governments and civil service officals, police officers and fire fighters currently get?
What percentage of our Officers would be affected by this? I know a pretty big number in my Wing and beyond who have those arrangements in place currently. How would that affect annual camp staffing or the ability of someone to attend the Sqn Cdrs Cse?
All interesting points which I hope the powers that be are discussing.
God NO!
My Wing is being fairly open about the review and seeking input from the whole adult staff strength.
I’m sat on the fence at the moment, but share the points Redowling has highlighted above.
I think it would be a great shame to make such a significant change just to save HQAC a bit of hassle dealing with service complaints.
Well if they do decide to change it, whatever we think will be irrelevant and it will happen. There will be major changes over the coming years as a result of; MoD budgetary cuts, contraction of the armed forces, “Cadet Expansion” and whatever is picked from DYER.
Let’s face it very, very nearly if not already, the ACO is the tail wagging the RAF dog. This can’t have been missed by the great and the good.
Redowling’s perspective is fairly close to my feelings, it wouldn’t affect what I do but it would affect how I felt about my relationship to the RAF, other than the uniform. Like him I look at my scroll and by it’s wording means something and has substance, a certificate of appointment, would not have the same gravitas. Just a personal perspective that many probably wouldn’t agree with.
If a commission was an ATC or Cadet Forces appointment, would OASC still get involved, if so would we have to go through all the current OASC hoops? Would it just be a Wing Board as per SNCO? If it was any more than a Wing Board, what would be the justification, given that OASC only got involved in our process to justify the jobs there.
As Leeroy says, the PTD need to be protected and I feel the scope for pay broadened to cover all activities with cadets, training or not. We had our HTD reduced for reasons that still escape me and it now, probably costs more to process my claim, than what I get. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest, as I just love the irony. But to lose the financial remuneration further, which if feel enables me to better support activities, would definitely make me think twice about the things I do currently, given the current general economic situation.
On the point of reservist leave, I get a week a year (paid) on that basis and I know I’m lucky. But I do think that there should be something written in employment law that says ALL adults that volunteer with bona fide youth organisations are entitled to one week’s paid leave p.a. for personal training and support their organisation’s activities. It doesn’t help the self-employed I know. It would still have to fit around their workmates etc, but they don’t take it at personal expense ie unpaid or solely out of their annual entitlement as many do.
Has anyone got any idea what the problem is that changing the status of the commission is actually supposed to solve?
From our perspective I’m sure I read that access to the whole gamut of whining, sorry, formal complaints procedures was causing problems and this was a way of streamlining things.
There was also something in the DYER which recommended a cadet commission as a method of creating consistency across the CFs
[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
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
A SoS instruction would be easier than legislation change, and much quicker.