Letters to the Editor

Count your wisdom by your teeth

It was with some surprise that on receiving my latest AIRN report I found I was non-compliant. The reason for this, much to my dissappointment, was the refusal of an offer to have my wisdon teeth removed. I was subsequently given a class three dental classification.
My dissappointment comes from the fact that for the past 10 years my regular dental check-ups have given me a clean bill of health based on the fact that I don’t have so much as a filling in my mouth and my wisdon teeth have provided me with no problems, nor have they shown any significant signs of movement or impaction.
Why then the sudden requirement to have them removed? Apparrently it is in response to operational dental casualties. I have previously served in East Timor, with my wisdon teeth, and had no problems, yet I am now apparently unift to deploy. If dental hygeine is such a significant cause of non-battle casualties then ponder these issues. Why is it that a soldier may be charged for not shaving daily, but is rarely asked by a commander “Did you brush you teeth today, digger?”
Perhaps our appearance is more important then our health. Understandably the onus of proof would be difficult to achieve. Another consideration might be the provision of a disposable toothbrush in our combat ration packs.
Surely this would prompt better oral health in the field. Needless to say, let’s not jump to the most drastic means, for although a common operation, the removal of wisdom teeth is not without its dangers, nor do I believe is it a pleasant experience.
Perhaps if I do relent and have them out, I should also book in to have my tonsils and appendix removed as well, just in case.
Keep on smiling!
Capt Morris
CTC (BC)
Puckapunyal
Lt-Col Murray Hayes, SO1 Dental, LHQ, replies:
I thank the author of this letter for highlighting the need for good oral hygiene. Toothbrushes, and other oral hygiene products, are made available to soldiers in the field and commanders are responsible for checking on their troop’s well being.
Oral hygiene is only one of a number of factors that contribute to a condition known as pericoronitis. A technical term, for infection of the gum, around a partially erupted third molar (wisdom tooth). Stress and poor diet are other factors, often beyond control.
Unlike tonsillitis and appendicitis, the risk of pericoronitis is significantly increased by deployment to the field. This is a potentially life threatening situation and was a common cause of death prior to the advent of antibiotics.
Should a soldier break a tooth or filling while in the field, it is well within the capabilities of a deployed dentist to repair the damage quickly and prevent evacuation. The same can not be said for removal of an infected wisdom tooth. It has been rightly pointed out that removal of wisdom teeth is not without its dangers nor is it a pleasant experience. Good reasons to deal with the situation prior to deployment rather than while “in the sticks”.
Without having dentally examined the author, I can not comment on the specific case. The bottom line is, each case is assessed on its merits, against criteria specified in Health Policy Directive No 404, Indications for removal of third molars in the ADF. We have both the member’s well being and Defence’s interests at heart. I also refer to Health Policy Directive 413, Refusal of dental treatment in the ADF. Should any Defence member seek further information in relation to this, your Defence dentist will be happy to discuss.
If it’s any consolation, I had mine out and lived to tell the tale.

Show tough stuff

For anyone wondering about the quality or motivation of those currently joining the Army, look no further than the recruiting advertisements that are being broadcast on the commercial television stations.
They are pathetic, especially when viewed next to the new commercial for the NSW Police Force.
Their commercial shows police doing some of the harder, ugly and more dangerous aspects of policing; such as, informing an elderly lady of a death in her family, sorting out violent altercations and assaulting criminals holed up in buildings.
It doesn’t concentrate on the soft, feel-good stuff that is offered in commercials for Army; such as people doing cartwheels, sitting on truck fenders talking incoherentlyor giving the impression to prospective officers that the motivation for joining Army should be to gain a degree that will set them up for life (probably not in the Army) instead of leading men into combat.
If we show the harder, even a little more of the unpleasant side to Army life (perhaps something to do with active service, not exercises, after all that’s what the Army is for) then perhaps we will attract a harder, less self-centred person to serve in the Army.
As it stands now, judging by the commercials, if you want a nice safe career – join the Army, if you want to kick doors and get into a fire fight – join the police. I’m sure it should be the other way around.
Sgt S. Armstrong,
Tactics Wing, School of Infantry, Singleton, NSW
Lt-Col Michael Mahy, Director Operations, DFRO, replies:
The advertising and marketing conducted by DFRO is designed to recruit the right people to sustain and enhance defence capability. It is designed to motivate our primary target market, that being suitable 17-to-24-year-old Australians, to pursuing a career in the ADF. To achieve this the ADF must appear to offer worthwhile and competitive careers that meet the needs and expectations of the target market. Once people apply for a career in the ADF DFRO tests and assesses them in accordance with the standards set by the three services. The testing and assessment process for the ADF remains stringent and is comparable to those of the leading professional armies in the world.
DFRO ensures that jobs in the ADF are both relevant and appealing to the target market by conducting extensive community research. The research determines key motivational factors, influencers, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with a career in the ADF. This research is commissioned to support individual campaigns for specified trades or avenues of entry. Advertising and marketing products are also researched before they are presented to the Ministerial Committee for Government Communications (MCGC) for approval and put to air or print.
Research shows that the Army’s combat role is already entrenched in the minds of the Australian public, established by a respected and admired history as a combat force and reinforced by continued national news coverage of the Army’s participation in East Timor and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the diverse range of career streams offered by Army does not attract the same level of exposure and must be reinforced to the target market through career-specific advertising and marketing.
The current strategy has been fundamental in recovering recruiting performance from its previous under-achievement in Financial Year 98/99 despite a 30 per cent increase in the number of recruits required by Army. In financial year 01/02, DFRO was successful in recruiting 106 per cent of the Army’s GE target.

Make it equitable

Capt I. Cossart [Army, August 15] called for members of the GRES to be taxed. I fully support this call provided that the change is equitable.
Part-time pay is set at either 85 or 90 per cent of the full-time rank and skill equivalent despite the requirement that the undergo the same training and achieve the same competancies. Part-time members do not receive any compensation for the conditions that qualify full-time members for the Service Allowance (SA) of $19.47 a day. Full-time members had their super increased from 8 to 9 per cent on July 1, 2002, and they receive it on salary and SA. Part-time members do not receive any superannuation nor did they receive a pay rise on July 1. Part-time members are paid based on full-time members being available for service 365 days a year. Most full-time members only work 230-to-270 days and they are compensated with the SA if they work more. Is this equitable?
An analysis of the tax-free “benefit” to a part-time private soldier who has no other income indicates that they are significantly worse off than if they were paid on an equitable basis and taxed. Under the current system a student who earns less than $6000 of taxable income would need to parade for 478 days to receive the same after tax compensation as his full-time equivalent. Students with no other income are a major source of recruits for the part-time Army. Further analysis indicates that the tax-free benefit only becomes worthwhile for those in the highest tax brackets and then it is negligible. A part-time major in the top tax bracket must work for 235 days to earn the equivalent of a full-time major on a grossed up basis excluding superannuation.
Part-time members of the Army are casual employees in that they only have limited opportunities to work. In every industrial award in Australia casual employees are paid more per day or hour than their full-time equivalents. This recognises that they are not paid holiday, sick, long service or any other leave and they provide additional flexiblility for the employer to meet staffing needs. This is clearly not the case with the part-time Army.
Perhap Capt Cossart would like to share our tax-free benefit and be paid on the same basis as a part-time member?
Maj C. Millhouse
4/3 RNSWR
Holsworthy

Quals discredit

After reading your article “ADF experience to be recognised” (Army, May 23), I contacted WO2 Rice to clarify the Period of Validity Requirement stated on the DPE qualifications website. The two qualifications I was inquiring about were the Diploma of Personnel Management and the Advanced Diploma of Management.
Now, even though the DPE qualifications homepage (which is more up to date than the DI(A) Pers 116-7, 17 July 1997) clearly states that both qualifications are available to both full-time and part-time members of the Army. I was told that I was not entitled to them because I was not in the ARA.
Is this just another case of the animosity that still exists towards the Army Reserve or the attitude that you can’t have it because you are a Choco? Either way, I would like to ask all the Reserve lieutenants who have completed their ROBC and Module 6 to apply for these qualifications and if DOCM-A rejects your application then I urge you to lodge an appeal to TC-A.
If the Army is serious about recruiting 6000 reserves then small concessional conditions of service like this would be worth advertising.
Most of the Army Reserve just want the opportunity to prove themselves equal and if takes extra competencies to do that then set up the hoops, I don’t mind a challenge.
Lt S. McNamara
25/49 RQR
Oakey, QLD
Lt-Col Ron Parrello, DOCM-A replies:
Where they can be equated to civil awards Defence has progressed the civil accreditation of Army delivered competencies for some time. Accreditation has expanded greatly since introduction and was extended to accreditable GRes qualifications in 1998 and has been the subject of several Army articles.
Army does not determine the awards that can be accredited nor does it have discretion to award accredited status outside of the guidelines negotiated with the national authority. Awards to be accredited are determined and authorised by a civilian national accreditation authority based on TC-A competency mapping of those competencies delivered through various training courses.
Unfortunately the information provided on the DPE qualifications homepage is intended as an information source and remains subordinate to any policy document. Corrective amendments are being proposed to be authorised by TC-A. The 1997 version of DI (A) Pers 116-7 you referred to pertains to credentials awarded under the outdated Register of Australian Tertiary Education (RATE) awards which were superceded in most corps on January 1, 2000. The July 2001 update of DI(A) 116-7 covers credentials under ADF guidelines and is the extant authoritative reference for credentials that can be awarded.
The GRes competency mapping does not translate directly to that of equivalent ARA training, so separate awards were negotiated with the civilian authority for GRes officers. As you were advised at the time of your enquiry the awards you were claiming are specifically mapped to the course competencies achieved on the ARA GSO commissioning program and relevant ROBCs, and can only be awarded to personnel who have undertaken that training. As you were advised, you may be eligible for award of the Diploma of Government (Management) and the Diploma of Personnel and Operations Management. Eligibility for these awards requires successful of the Part Time First Appointment Course completion (including the Mod 5 task book), promotion to full lieutenant, a satisfactory or better grading in your Performance Appraisal Report (PAR), and efficient service on or after January 1, 1998.

Citation change

You will recall that I had a letter published in Army on July 18, calling for personnel who had served in Timor with 10FSB to contact me regarding their entitlement to the Meritorious Unit Citation.
A recent review of DHA records indicates that the dates published in the letter were incorrect. The cutoff date for the award of the MUC is not February 23, 2000, as originally stated, but June 30 2000.
Any serving or former serving member, who served in East Timor with 10FSB between 20 September 1999 – 30 June 2000, for a minimum of 30 days (continuous or aggregate) is entitled to the award of the MUC with Federation Star. Please note that service must have been with 10FSB or the company group of 10FSB that remained in country following the transition from INTERFET to UNTAET and service must have been in East Timor itself (supporting service in Darwin and Townsville does not count for entitlement).
Anyone who believes they have an entitlement based on the above criteria should contact me at the Directorate of Honours and Awards. Once entitlement has been checked and approved, arrangements will be made for MUC emblems to be forwarded, either to the member’s current unit for presentation or to the members home address in the case of discharged members.
Graham Wilson
SO Medals (Meritorious Unit Citation) Directorate of Honours and Awards
Russell Offices, ACT, 2600.

Saving money - not

In response to Sgt Morgan’s comment [Army, August 15], I concur and am equalled galled. It’s not only the incessant name changes, but you will note the word “Defence” has been dropped – it begs the question “who does this organisation support if not Defence?”
On top of this is the ever-pressing need to save money, which in some round-about, corporate sense these name changes and graphic designs (on everything from stationary to business cards and name tags) must be doing ... somehow?
Capt J. Newman
SO3 JOPS
Leeuwin Bks, WA

Saving LSL credit

In reply to Sgt Craig’s dilemma in regard to LSL. I too was in a similar situation when I applied to re-enlist within the 12-month cut-off date and I also didn’t meet the time frame.
Perhaps a solution in the future could be if a member applies to re-enlist within the 12-month cut-off and is subsequently accepted (no matter how long it takes after the application) then the soldier could be re-instated LSL entitlements.
This would relieve pressure on the career managers and recruiters as they then can comfortably take as much time as needed to re-enlist a soldier which bests suits the Army and the member.
Cpl D.Hoy
25/49RQR
Gallipoli Barracks, QLD

Out-dated headline

I HAVE read Edition 1056 [Army, August 1] and was upset to see the term “Citizen Soldier”. Are we back in the 1940s?
This is disgraceful terminology and does not reflect the current role and expertise of the Army Reserve.
May I remind you of the late 1960s Millar Report.
Of the many recommendations made, the strongest one was changing the name of the then Citizen Military Forces (CMF) to Army Reserve and moving away from the “Citizen Soldier” and “Dad’s Army” tags of that time, although, the “Chocos” tag has stuck.
Let’s bury the Citizen Soldier. He is long gone, but not forgotten – the backbone of Australia’s Defence policy right up until the 1970s. The Citizen Soldier was a man of his times and is not relevant to the modern-day Army Reserve.
The Army Reserve says it all – let’s leave it that way.
Cpl A.T. Buckingham
52 MP Pl (SIB)
Fremantle, WA

HOW TO WRITE TO ARMY NEWS

It is the right of all soldiers to correspond with Army. Soldiers wishing to air their views through letters to the editor have access to the newspaper without using the chain of command. Letters will be edited for spelling, grammatical errors and newspaper style and may be edited for space. Preference is given to typed letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected where they are too long, abusive, cover a subject that has been exhausted or can be answered in the author’s unit. They will be published only when they include the author’s name, unit (where applicable), location and contact number.
Send letters to: The Editor, Army Newspaper, R8-LG-029, Russell Offices, Dept of Defence, Canberra, ACT, 2600. Phone (02) 6266 7612, fax (02) 6265 6690 or e-mail
armynews@defencenews.gov.au (Please note this is not an internal e-mail address and therefore requires Sec: Unclassified in the subject box when sending from a Defence-network terminal)

The opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not represent the views of the editor or the Army.