Letters to the Editor

It’s a weighty issue
Cold comfort
It’s not funny
No longer top of the shots
No promotion
SUR SNCOs
Not quite new
PMKeyS plug


Fire for Effect

How to write to Army News

It’s a weighty issue

All potential recruits are subject to BMI standards for entry into the Army.Photo by Pte Shannon Joyce, Army newspaper

I’M writing this letter to find out what the standard is on the Body Mass Index (BMI) for enlistment into the Army as well as the use of orthodics in combat boots.

I have now twice tried for re-enlistment into the Australian Army; first as a regular soldier and later as a reserve.

When I first saw the doctor in 2000, he told me I did not meet the BMI standard, that being 183cm and 88kg.

I was 5kg overweight. I had to explain that when I was in the ARA, my weight was always around 95-100kg because I did a lot of physical training. He then passed me, but told me if I gained weight before my fitness test I would be deemed unsuitable for service, a couple of months later I was found unsuitable because of injury.

This year I applied for the reserves and was accepted for entry straight into a unit, but had to go through recruitment testing again. Again I was found unsuitable due to my BMI, being 96.7kg and that I had to wear orthodics in my shoes.

I find it hard to believe that all soldiers serving now are up to their BMI standard, as I was never in my eight years’ service and was never questioned about it.

I also know of soldiers who are fitted with orthodics and are on active service overseas at this very moment.

How many potentially good soldiers have these standards knocked back from the Army when all you hear is that the Army is in need of new recruits?

Matthew Trynes
Defence Transport Canberra

Maj Richard Mallet, Army Health Implementation Team, responds;

ADFP (Health Series) 701 Recruit Medical Examination Procedures provide the principles and standards for enlistment into the ADF and specifically, the Australian Army.

This includes standards relating to Body Mass Index (BMI) and the assessment of orthotics. The BMI formula: weight (kg) divided by height (in metres) squared, determines an acceptable weight for height range for the population, an approach endorsed by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

This allows for a risk assessment to be conducted for a variety of diseases, including cardiovascular complications, diabetes and renal disease. Health Directive 206 also provides guidance for the use of the BMI in managing the wellbeing and physical fitness of serving personnel.

In addition, ADFP 701 provides medical officers with guidance regarding a musculoskeletal assessment of the impact of wearing orthotics on an individual’s capacity to undergo training.

From the information provided during Mr Trynes’s 2000 assessment, he would have been classified with a BMI of 26.3. This BMI places an individual in the range that could potentially lead to health problems.

As correctly explained by Mr Trynes, this BMI figure can be rationalised following the consideration of lean body mass and percentage body fat.

This BMI would not have negated his recruitment and it is unfortunate that he subsequently incurred an injury precluding entry to the Army at that time. Post 2001, BMI standards within ADFP 701 were liberalised for all general entry applicants.

During his subsequent enlistment attempts, Mr Trynes’ BMI would have been 28.9, putting him in an acceptable range for recruitment.

The impact of wearing orthotics would have been more conclusive in terms of Mr Trynes’s recruitment. Army’s current position is that it will not accept recruits into training who are reliant upon the use of orthotics.

The current combat boot can accept most types of prescribed or pre-fabricated orthoses but this is not true of all footwear in the Army (Baxter boots, shoes and training shoes). Ultimately, without access to Mr Trynes’ documents, I am unable to conclusively determine how he was assessed for suitability for entry to Army.

It is likely that Mr Trynes’ reliance upon orthotics precluded his recruitment in accordance with current Army policy.
Mr Trynes should be aware, however, that Army are currently reviewing policy related to recruiting and the use of orthotics in order to ensure that the opportunity to enlist suitable personnel to Army is not lost.

TOP

Cold comfort

THE continued denial of Airconditioning Allowance (ACA) to members who own their own home in Darwin just does not add up. The latest information to hand claims as justification, that members who have purchased their own home have benefited from other allowances, so therefore should not be entitled to ACA.

There are two allowances being used to justify the continued denial of ACA to members who own their own home; HPAS/HPSEA and the Defence Home Owners Scheme. The inclusion of HPAS or HPSEA in this argument is totally wrong, as this allowance is not restricted, as is ACA, to a specific locality.

The point that home owners have access to the Defence Home Owners Scheme is acknowledged, however this does not apply in every case, but let’s look at a few figures anyway. I receive $120.93 a month as subsidy to my Defence home loan, this equates to a subsidy of $1451.16 a year.

If I was in RA I would receive a subsidy of $9677.20 a year, this is calculated by taking the weekly RA ceiling for Darwin for a WO2 of $340 subtracting the member contributions of $153.90 a week, which leaves a weekly subsidy of $186.10, payable by Defence.

This clearly shows that Defence is saving $8226.04 a year by my decision to own my own home in this locality. The savings are slightly less at $6551.64 a year if I was in a MQ, based on the member contributions of $153.90 being matched by Defence. The ultimate aim of Defence to have a 50/50 split.

The following statement was issued in a Ministerial press release: “Darwin’s climate is at its hottest and most humid from September to May and the costs of keeping homes comfortable during that time can be high,” Fran Bailey said.

“The airconditioning allowance offers much-needed assistance to ADF personnel and their families by subsidising the cost of keeping their homes cool in such a climate.”

I can assure you that my home is subject to the same climatic conditions as the MQ across the road and the cost of keeping my home cool is just as high. The proposal that an overall review of locality allowance will correct this anomaly is admission that there is one. Why the continued denial of this allowance?

WO2 N.P. Gould
CClk 1 Armd Regt, Darwin

TOP

It’s not funny

I HAVE been reading the “Say again Over” segment for some time hoping to see something that was actually funny.

I understand that there is some requirement to be politically correct, but surely not to the extent of sacrificing funny for lame! My work colleagues agree, so it is not just me. Maybe the space could be better used for advertising.

Don’t take this the wrong way, I thoroughly enjoy reading Army, but I also know that there are plenty of funny people out there.

WO2 Richard Andersen
SM STA TP

TOP

No longer top of the shots

I COMPETED at AASAM in the early ‘90s and used it as a stepping stone for my development as a representative for both the Australian Rifle Team and the Army Rifle Team. I’m severely disappointed to see that AASAM has denigrated from an excellent international competition, which promoted and developed marksmanship across the entire ADF, to what is now little more than a closed “club” level shoot.

With the operational tempo of units and the time frames required for ordering ammunition, the two months notice that was received by the majority of the Army for this competition, stating the qualification requirements doesn’t make this an open competition nor reflective of who is worthy of being the Champion Shot of the Army.

You cannot be called the Champion Shot of the Army if the entire Army hasn’t been able to at least achieve the qualifying standard.

What was once open to every soldier in every unit, whether reserve or ARA, is now a closed competition available to those who have qualified or are able to qualify on a live fire LF18 in the next two months.

If the WTSS is good enough to qualify for AIRN, why is it not good enough to qualify for the Champion Shot? So what has become of the Champion Shot? He is no longer a big fish in a big pond, he is now a small fish in an evaporating puddle.

Sgt Fitzmaurice
SME

TOP

No promotion

Army edition 1103, August 12, on page 24 in People. I refer to the caption accompanying the photo of COMDT CATC “promoting” WO1 Tom Adams to captain in the above edition of Army.

For future reference I believe most WO1s would not consider commissioning to captain as a promotion.

To quote a previous CO SCMA that addressed an ISC course I was attending “it is my experience that WO1 rank is the equivalent of colonel rank in terms of experience and effort required to reach that rank (sic WO1)”.

My experience earned in attaining the rank of WO1 saved my bacon more times than I care to remember in my time as a captain and now major.

This belief in no way infers that WO1 are equal to lieutenant colonel or colonel who have had to work equally, if not harder, to achieve their rank.

It simply compares the amount of effort and experience required to reach the respective ranks, in the respective streams.

While never regreting my decision to apply for a commission experience taught me that WO1 were held in as much esteem, if not more than captains. No offence to captains.

Hence WO1 are not promoted to captain, simply commissioned.

Maj Paul Hampton,
2IC SME

SUR SNCOs

FOR the purposes of updating Sydney University Regiment Sergeants’ Mess members register, the current PMC, WO1 David Deacon is keen to hear from all former members (including outstations). We want to re-establish contact with former members and issue formal invitations to ex-members to attend this year’s Croll Whistle Dinner, Saturday November 27.

Please contact either WO1 David Deacon 0413 580 266 David.Deacon@defence.gov.au the project co-ordinator, Sgt Andrew Pardy (02) 9741 2212 Andrew.Pardy@defence.gov.au

Sgt Andrew Pardy, SUR

Not quite new

IT was with great excitement that I noticed that DI(A) Pers 47-1 Career Management for Australian Regular Army Officers had been ammended and approved by the CA.

Even more so when I noted that some pages had “Complete Revision” emblazoned on them in new type.

My excitement was justified when I noted in Part 4 of the instruction, that no longer will I need to have a Performance Appraisal Report, as this “new” Defence Instruction clearly informs the reader that officers are to be reported on using a PR19 – Evaluation Development report – Officers (EDRO), available on Webforms.

Well the wheel has turned; these were phased out in 2001, and are not available on Webforms (as mentioned in this instruction).

It’s good to see the “cut and paste” fairy has been put to good use yet again.

Lt Andrew Mahoney
102 Fd Wksp, 3CSSB

PMKeyS plug

I READ Sgt Duncombe’s letter, ADF Medalling – Edition 1103 August 12, with some amusement. I work in SCMA as the plans sergeant where I compile personnel data from PMKeyS, for example, how many 074-2 Clk Admins in 3 Bde against the number of positions? How many people enlisted on what year? And if the PMKeyS operational log/activity log is updated, who went on what Operation and when?

Wait, I’m getting there.

Last year, I provided to Honours and Awards how I received this data and who to see about getting it in Canberra. In 10 minutes at work in the SCMA Plans cell in sunny Queenscliff, we can produce a list of who is entitled to the DFLSM or the DSM by month or day, in what region, unit, ARA or reserve, and for any service, in fact anyone on PMKeyS, including the APS.

It still confuses me as to why we have to still apply for a medal when the system has it all on PMKeyS. When, in fact, we can accurately predict how many will be entitled two-three months out. Wait is this a positive plug for PMKeys?

Sgt Daniel Donald
Plans SCMA

Unshaven cadets
I WOULD like to reply to a letter published in Army September 9, Close Shave by WO2 Gregory.

I was amused by comments by WO2 Gregory in regards to Army Cadets not being shaven on the cover of the Defence Family Matters mag.

Did he actually read his letter before he pushed the send button to Army? I quote from the letter “I know the AACC is not bound by the same regulations as ARA or Gres members.”

Well if cadets are not bound by the same regs, why bitch about them?

Do you whinge about pictures of Navy personnel that have beards as well? Just because other areas within Defence do things differently, it doesn’t make them wrong.

Sgt Darren Morley, AACC Trg Sgt, 9CSSB Warradale SA

TOP

More medalling
I AM writing in response to WO2 Lynch’s article Medal Madness dated August 12. In the article WO2 Lynch complains that ORs and SNCOs have not received as many awards in the recent Queen’s Birthday honours as commissioned officers.

He also shoots off at the mouth by saying that only when ORs/SNCOs are permitted to approve their own recommendations will the score line appear balanced.

I can’t believe the audacity and outright pettyness of WO2 Lynch’s comments. Firstly, he obviously believes that there should be a quota on the number of medals issued otherwise he would not have decided to count the awards and secondly, one must assume that he only performs his duties in expectation of praise and glory.

Last time I checked the RAR’s motto was “Duty First” not “Medals first”.

Capt W. Martin, ADFA

TOP

Band of brothers
CALLING on all past members, particularly those who served with the band from 1945 till 1985 to contact Cpl Rod Lewin at 1RAR Band, Lavarack Bks, Townsville.

I am attempting to compile a list of past Bandmasters/Music Directors and members, as well as researching the history behind the Regimental Marches of 1RAR and the origin of the Leopard Skin.
Phone (07) 4771 7841 to add your name.

Cpl Rod Lewin, BQMS, 1RAR Band

TOP

2/4RAR roll call
I AM the curator at 4RAR (Cdo) museum foundation trying to compile a 2/4RAR nominal roll from 1973-1994. I have at present 1980–1986, 1990–1994. If anybody has a roll or information they can contact me schefpara@mail2me.com.au or the secretary at PO Box 369 Parramatta, NSW 2150.

Frank Angyal, Curator/Secretary
4RAR (Cdo) Museum Foundation

TOP

Langs reunion
ADF School of Languages (ADF Langs) is calling all linguists and language enthusiasts to help celebrate it’s very special 60th Anniversary with a reunion and open day.

Pen the date in your diary – October 22, at the school’s base in Laverton, RAAF Williams, Victoria.

Two events will mark the occasion: an open day at ADF Langs at 10.30am that includes cultural performances in the Base Cinema followed by a lunch and open day at the school. That evening, a reception/cocktail party will be held at a venue yet to be decided.

People interested in attending one, or both events should contact LIC Vietnamese Department, Michael Gretton at michael.gretton@defence.gov.au

Fire your well-aimed shots at a deserving target through the Fire For Effect column.
Keep them short and snappy.

Longer letters will be edited.

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 and 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 line when sending from a DRN terminal)

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